Publication bias is present in blood and marrow transplantation: an analysis of abstracts at an international meeting

Abstract

Publication bias is the preferential publication of research with positive results, and is a threat to the validity of medical literature. Preliminary evidence suggests that research in blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) lacks publication bias. We evaluated publication bias at an international conference, the 2006 Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR)/American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) "tandem" meeting. All abstracts were categorized by type of research, funding status, number of centers, sample size, and direction of the results. Publication status was then determined for the abstracts by searching PubMed. Of 501 abstracts, 217 (43%) were later published as complete manuscripts. Abstracts with positive results were more likely to be published than those with negative or unstated results (P ‫؍‬ .001). Furthermore, positive studies were published in journals with a mean impact factor of 6.92, whereas journals in which negative/unstated studies were published had an impact factor of only 4.30 (P ‫؍‬ .02). We conclude that publication bias exists in the BMT literature. Full publication of research, regardless of direction of results, should be encouraged and the BMT community should be aware of the existence of publication bias. (Blood. 2011;118(25):6698-6701) IntroductionOnly a small portion of all research eventually becomes part of the published medical literature. Publication bias occurs when a particular characteristic of research renders it more or less likely to be published. 1 For example, if research with "positive" findings is more likely to be published than research with "negative" findings, a bias toward a positive finding may ensue. This is of particular concern in areas of medicine that rely on data from multiple studies, each with small sample sizes. 2 For example, if a new drug is studied in several small trials that demonstrate a mixture of positive and negative results, but only the studies showing benefit are published, the scientific community might falsely conclude that the medication is useful.A variety of factors are associated with publication bias. 3 Authors or funders may be more motivated to pursue the publication of a positive result than a negative one. In addition, journal editors might be more interested in publishing positive findings. It is also possible that authors might anticipate a low likelihood of success at submitting a negative study to a journal, and therefore choose not to proceed with manuscript submission. Another possibility is that if authors perceive a low likelihood of acceptance of negative findings in a journal with a high impact factor, they may choose to submit to a journal with a lower impact factor. Therefore, negative papers are not only less likely to be published, but when they are published, they may be in a less widely read or influential journal.Publication bias has been examined in many areas of medicine, but has not been comprehensively studied in blood and marrow transplantation (BMT). [4...

Publication Outcomes of Abstracts Presented at an American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Annual Scientific Meeting

“…The publication ratio from the 2006 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting was comparable to other scientific meetings from recent years (2001–2007) (7–17) (Table 4). Publication ratios from other meetings varied remarkably between 20.5% and 68.9%.…”

Publication rate of studies presented at veterinary anaesthesia specialty meetings during the years 2003–2008

“…; Paulson et al. ), suggests that there is currently no publication bias towards positive results in the veterinary anaesthesia literature, as we found no association between outcome and subsequent publication. It is possible that researchers and reviewers of the specialty of veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia consider negative outcomes as being as important as positive outcomes.…”

Stromal cells–are they really useful for GVHD?

“…[28][29][30][31][32] Some studies from academic institutions have shown positive results, but there is most likely a selection bias in the literature as negative results are seldom published. 33 With all these concerns in mind, should we really use stromal cells as treatment for GVHD? Before we condemn this kind of therapy, we will summarize what we know today.…”