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

Pardo-Hernández, Héctor; Urrútia, Gerard; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Marušić, Ana; Wager, Elizabeth; Bonfill, Xavier

doi:10.1111/jep.12692

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in case of scientists who move between academia, industry, and government), disclosure and providing extra information is believed to empower readers to place credence on presented data (Marcovitch et al 2010). That said, it is also argued that disclosing sources of funding might not reveal much about funders' actual pressure on researchers (Kukla 2012;Morley 2013), or their economic interests (Pardo-Hernandez et al 2018). Furthermore, in some cases the disclosure of financial sources might actually worsen reporting bias, as it may increase authors' inclination to exaggerate results "in anticipation of reader discounting brought about by financial disclosure" (Johnson 2013(Johnson , 2244).…”

Section: -Bias (81 Documents)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

Hosseini

Gordijn

2020

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

show abstract

Section: -Bias (81 Documents)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

Hosseini

Gordijn

2020

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis

Pool,

Ruiz del Portal Luyten,

van der Pluijm

et al. 2024

Malar J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dissemination and outcome reporting biases are a significant problem in clinical research, with far-reaching implications for both scientific understanding and clinical decision-making. This study investigates the prevalence of dissemination- and outcome reporting biases in registered interventional malaria research. Methods All malaria interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2020 were identified. Subsequently, publications that matched the registration were searched. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of registered studies that resulted in subsequent publication of study results, the concordance between registered outcomes, and reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes were compliance with WHO standards for timely publication (issued in 2017) of summary study results in the respective trial registry (within 12 months of study completion) or peer-reviewed publication (within 24 months of study completion) was evaluated. Results A total of 579 trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 544 met the inclusion criteria. Notably, almost 36.6% of these trials (199/544) were registered retrospectively, with 129 (23.7%) registered after the first patient enrolment and 70 (12.9%) following study completion. Publications were identified for 351 out of 544 registered trials (64.5%), involving 1,526,081 study participants. Conversely, publications were not found for 193 of the 544 registrations (35.5%), which aimed to enrol 417,922 study participants. Among these 544 registrations, 444 (81.6%) did not meet the WHO standard to post summary results within 12 months of primary study completion (the last visit of the last subject for collection of data on the primary outcome), while 386 out of 544 registrations (71.0%) failed to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of primary study completion. Discrepancies were noted in the reported primary outcomes compared to the registered primary outcomes in 47.6% (222/466) of the published trials, and an even higher discordance rate of 73.2% (341/466 publications) for secondary outcomes. Conclusions Non-dissemination remains a significant issue in interventional malaria research, with most trials failing to meet WHO standards for timely dissemination of summary results and peer-reviewed journal publications. Additionally, outcome reporting bias is highly prevalent across malaria publications. To address these challenges, it is crucial to implement strategies that enhance the timely reporting of research findings and reduce both non-dissemination and outcome reporting bias.

show abstract

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

Cited by 2 publications

References 40 publications

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About