Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review

Abstract

ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases.Study Design and SettingWe searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE).ResultsWe located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE).ConclusionThe use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.

Information overload in healthcare: too much of a good thing?

“…Yet, being aware of publication and related biases, there are many cases where these mechanisms have failed as filters. [23,24] This failure of the peer review system as information filter is one of the elements making external appraisal necessary.…”

Opinions and potential solutions regarding dissemination bias from funding agencies of biomedical research in Europe

“…As part of the work conducted on research ethics committees, journal editors and publishers, and researchers Strech et aland Panteli, it was found that most of these stakeholders acknowledge the deleterious effects of dissemination bias on health care research but are unwilling or unable to implement measures to control the problem. In addition, a recent systematic review concluded that while implementation of measures to reduce dissemination bias is on the rise, they are not adequately conducted …”

“…In addition, a recent systematic review concluded that while implementation of measures to reduce dissemination bias is on the rise, they are not adequately conducted. 36 Among surveyed agencies, there was wide support for making should not be limited to experimental trials but also to observational studies. However, these agencies appear to be taking little or no action to implement these measures.…”

Sesgo de publicación: ¿qué pueden hacer las revistas científicas?

“…Pese a lo dicho, un estudio retrospectivo realizado en ocho revistas médicas, observó que ninguno de dichos aspectos había influenciado (aparentemente) en la decisión editorial, indicando que también existe un creciente interés por parte de las revistas en realizar un manejo ético y que minimice el sesgo de publicación 12 . Para minimizar el sesgo de publicación se han delineado varias opciones que incluyen desde la aplicación de modelos estadísticos en la evaluación de las evidencias, hasta la creación de estrategias de información y comunicación de su importancia o la elaboración de políticas de transparencia sobre el desarrollo y la publicación de investigación 7,13 . En los últimos años, quizás gracias a la campaña #AllTrials (http://www.alltrials.net/), el registro y publicación de protocolos ha adquirido un creciente interés y relevancia en la intención de minimizar el sesgo de publicación y evitar la modificación de protocolos una vez iniciada la investigación 14 .…”