Literature DB >> 30673844

Association between medical academic genealogy and publication outcome: impact of unconscious bias on scientific objectivity.

Brian R Hirshman1,2,3, Ali A Alattar4, Sanjay Dhawan5, Kathleen M Carley2,3, Clark C Chen6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our previous studies suggest that the training history of an investigator, termed "medical academic genealogy", influences the outcomes of that investigator's research. Here, we use meta-analysis and quantitative statistical modeling to determine whether such effects contribute to systematic bias in published conclusions.
METHODS: A total of 108 articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the high-grade glioma (HGG) surgical resection literature. Analysis was performed on the 70 articles with sufficient data for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates were generated for key academic genealogies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine whether the effects attributed to genealogy alone can arise due to chance alone.
RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the HGG literature without consideration for academic medical genealogy revealed that gross total resection (GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio (OR) for the hazard of death after surgery for both anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) and glioblastoma (AA: log [OR] = - 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.07 to - 0.01]; glioblastoma log [OR] = - 0.36, 95% CI [- 0.44 to - 0.29]). For the glioblastoma literature, meta-analysis of articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly radiation oncologists revealed no reduction in the hazard of death after GTR [log [OR] = - 0.16, 95% CI [- 0.41 to 0.09]. In contrast, meta-analysis of published articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly neurosurgeons revealed that GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the hazard of death [log [OR] = - 0.29, 95% CI [- 0.40 to 0.18]. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the observed discrepancy between the articles contributed by the members of these two genealogies was unlikely to arise by chance alone (p < 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of articles contributed by authors belonging to the different medical academic genealogies yielded distinct and contradictory pooled point-estimates, suggesting that genealogy contributes to systematic bias in the published literature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brain tumor; Medical academic genealogy; Meta-analysis; Scientific objectivity

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30673844      PMCID: PMC6452899          DOI: 10.1007/s00701-019-03804-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)        ISSN: 0001-6268            Impact factor:   2.216


  31 in total

1.  Impact of medical academic genealogy on publication patterns: An analysis of the literature for surgical resection in brain tumor patients.

Authors:  Brian R Hirshman; Jessica A Tang; Laurie A Jones; James A Proudfoot; Kathleen M Carley; Lawrence Marshall; Bob S Carter; Clark C Chen
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 10.422

2.  A critical evaluation of cystic features in primary glioblastoma as a prognostic factor for survival.

Authors:  Gurvinder Kaur; Orin Bloch; Brian J Jian; Rajwant Kaur; Michael E Sughrue; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Susan M Chang; Andrew T Parsa
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 5.115

3.  An extent of resection threshold for newly diagnosed glioblastomas.

Authors:  Nader Sanai; Mei-Yin Polley; Michael W McDermott; Andrew T Parsa; Mitchel S Berger
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Impact of extent of resection for recurrent glioblastoma on overall survival: clinical article.

Authors:  Orin Bloch; Seunggu J Han; Soonmee Cha; Matthew Z Sun; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Andrew T Parsa
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  Multifocal glioblastoma multiforme: prognostic factors and patterns of progression.

Authors:  Timothy N Showalter; Jocelyn Andrel; David W Andrews; Walter J Curran; Constantine Daskalakis; Maria Werner-Wasik
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-05-17       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Historical controls for phase II surgically based trials requiring gross total resection of glioblastoma multiforme.

Authors:  Nicholas Butowski; Kathleen R Lamborn; Mitchel S Berger; Michael D Prados; Susan M Chang
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Quantitative imaging study of extent of surgical resection and prognosis of malignant astrocytomas.

Authors:  A Kowalczuk; R L Macdonald; C Amidei; G Dohrmann; R K Erickson; J Hekmatpanah; S Krauss; S Krishnasamy; G Masters; S F Mullan; A J Mundt; P Sweeney; E E Vokes; B K Weir; R L Wollman
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Surgical resection and radiation therapy versus biopsy and radiation therapy in the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.

Authors:  F W Kreth; P C Warnke; R Scheremet; C B Ostertag
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 5.115

9.  Independent association of extent of resection with survival in patients with malignant brain astrocytoma.

Authors:  Matthew J McGirt; Kaisorn L Chaichana; Muraya Gathinji; Frank J Attenello; Khoi Than; Alessandro Olivi; Jon D Weingart; Henry Brem; Alf Redo Quiñones-Hinojosa
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.115

10.  Prognosis of patients with multifocal glioblastoma: a case-control study.

Authors:  Chirag G Patil; Anthony Yi; Adam Elramsisy; Jethro Hu; Debraj Mukherjee; Dwain K Irvin; John S Yu; Serguei I Bannykh; Keith L Black; Miriam Nuño
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 5.115

View more
  1 in total

1.  The impact of authors' medical specialty on publication patterns and published results of adjuvant radiotherapy for WHO grade 2 meningiomas-a systematic review.

Authors:  Per Sveino Strand; Ole Solheim
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.216

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.