Literature DB >> 32476671

Potential publication bias in chiropractic and spinal manipulation research listed on clinicaltrials.gov.

Breanne M Wells1, Dana Lawrence2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial registries are used to help improve transparency in trial reporting. Our study aimed to identify potential publication bias in chiropractic and spinal manipulation research by assessing data drawn from published studies listed in clinincaltrials.gov.
METHODS: We searched the clinicaltrials.gov registry database for completed trials tagged with the key indexing terms chiropractic or spinal manipulation. We assessed if the trial registry had been updated with data, then searched for publications corresponding to the registered trials. Finally, the frequency of positive or negative results was determined from published studies.
RESULTS: For the term 'chiropractic', 63% of studies supported the intervention and 52% supported the intervention for the term 'spinal manipulation'. DISCUSSION: Publication bias in chiropractic and spinal manipulation research listed in clinicaltrials.gov appears to occur. Further work may help understand why this happens and what may be done to mitigate this moving forward. © JCCA 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chiropractic; publication bias; scientific journals

Year:  2020        PMID: 32476671      PMCID: PMC7250511     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc        ISSN: 0008-3194


  16 in total

Review 1.  Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review.

Authors:  Andreas Lundh; Sebastiaan L Knijnenburg; Anders W Jørgensen; Elvira C van Dalen; Leontien C M Kremer
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 12.111

Review 2.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: publication bias evaluations are not routinely conducted in clinical oncology systematic reviews.

Authors:  D Herrmann; P Sinnett; J Holmes; S Khan; C Koller; M Vassar
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 3.  Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: metaepidemiologic study.

Authors:  Akira Onishi; Toshi A Furukawa
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals.

Authors:  Riley J Hedin; Blake A Umberham; Byron N Detweiler; Lauren Kollmorgen; Matt Vassar
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Paul Atakpo; Matt Vassar
Journal:  J Dermatol Sci       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.563

6.  The Scientific Impact of Positive and Negative Phase 3 Cancer Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Joseph M Unger; William E Barlow; Scott D Ramsey; Michael LeBlanc; Charles D Blanke; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

7.  The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias.

Authors:  Harriet A Carroll; Zoi Toumpakari; Laura Johnson; James A Betts
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Outcome switching in randomized controlled oncology trials reporting on surrogate endpoints: a cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Alberto Falk Delgado; Anna Falk Delgado
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs.

Authors:  Nicolas Rasmussen; Kirby Lee; Lisa Bero
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource.

Authors:  Ben Goldacre; Nicholas J DeVito; Carl Heneghan; Francis Irving; Seb Bacon; Jessica Fleminger; Helen Curtis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-09-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.