Literature DB >> 26108701

Journal editors impasse with outcome reporting bias.

Rafael Dal-Ré1, Arthur L Caplan2.   

Abstract

Several requirements and regulations have been issued to promote clinical trial transparency through prospective registration of trials, disclosure of results, access to trial reports submitted to regulatory agencies and access to anonymized patient-level data. Clinical trial results are disseminated through articles. Yet, many present outcome reporting bias. Open access to trial data will help to deter outcome reporting bias. However, this is not enough to clinicians. Access to trial protocols by journal staff has proven rather inefficacious in preventing outcome reporting bias. Two proposals have been suggested or implemented to tackle outcome reporting bias that are discussed in this article. Editors should implement quality-control processes aiming at preventing outcome reporting bias. Readers should be informed as to the efficiency of the implemented process.
© 2015 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26108701     DOI: 10.1111/eci.12484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest        ISSN: 0014-2972            Impact factor:   4.686


  6 in total

Review 1.  Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning.

Authors:  Rafael Dal-Ré; Ana Marušić
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.

Authors:  Nikolina Vrljičak Davidović; Luka Komić; Ivana Mešin; Mihaela Kotarac; Donald Okmažić; Tomislav Franić
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 4.785

3.  Why prudence is needed when interpreting articles reporting clinical trial results in mental health.

Authors:  Rafael Dal-Ré; Julio Bobes; Pim Cuijpers
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies.

Authors:  Arnaud Vaganay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review.

Authors:  Cole Wayant; Caleb Scheckel; Chandler Hicks; Timothy Nissen; Linda Leduc; Mousumi Som; Matt Vassar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals.

Authors:  Benjamin Howard; Jared T Scott; Mark Blubaugh; Brie Roepke; Caleb Scheckel; Matt Vassar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.