Role of Editorial and Peer Review Processes in Publication Bias: Analysis of Drug Trials Submitted to Eight Medical Journals

Abstract

BackgroundPublication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negative results, but may also occur after submission. We evaluated whether submitted manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with drugs are more likely to be accepted if they report positive results.MethodsManuscripts submitted from January 2010 through April 2012 to one general medical journal (BMJ) and seven specialty journals (Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, British Journal of Ophthalmology, Gut, Heart, Thorax, Diabetologia, and Journal of Hepatology) were included, if at least one study arm assessed the efficacy or safety of a drug and a statistical test was used to evaluate treatment effects. Publication status was retrospectively retrieved from submission systems or provided by journals. Sponsorship and trial results were extracted from manuscripts and classified according to predefined criteria. Main outcome measure was acceptance for publication.ResultsOf 15,972 manuscripts submitted, 472 (3.0%) were drug RCTs, of which 98 (20.8%) were published. Among submitted drug RCTs, 287 (60.8%) had positive and 185 (39.2%) negative results. Of these, 60 (20.9%) and 38 (20.5%), respectively, were published. Manuscripts on non-industry trials (n = 213) reported positive results in 138 (64.8%) manuscripts, compared to 71 (47.7%) on industry-supported trials (n = 149), and 78 (70.9%) on industry-sponsored trials (n = 110). Twenty-seven (12.7%) non-industry trials were published, compared to 27 (18.1%) industry-supported and 44 (40.0%) industry-sponsored trials. After adjustment for other trial characteristics, manuscripts reporting positive results were not more likely to be published (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.66). Submission to specialty journals, sample size, multicentre status, journal impact factor, and corresponding authors from Europe or US were significantly associated with publication.ConclusionsFor the selected journals, there was no tendency to preferably publish manuscripts on drug RCTs that reported positive results, suggesting that publication bias may occur mainly prior to submission.

Delivery of care for functional gastrointestinal disorders: A systematic review

“…42 Negative or neutral evaluations of specialist gastroenterological services may also be less likely to be published. In the absence of accepted biomarkers for functional gut disorders, a clinical comparative evaluation of the outcome of care is difficult.…”

“…New pharmacological studies are often prioritized for publication over non-pharmacological studies. 42 Negative or neutral evaluations of specialist gastroenterological services may also be less likely to be published. 43 The two reports in this review of standard gastroenterologist-only care revealed poor patient outcomes.…”

Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials

“…However, another interesting aspect of journal-level conflict of interest is editorial bias [61]. Recent articles have suggested that the editors of prominent journals have failed to maintain a firewall between the business and editorial departments, resulting in a form of financial conflict of interest related to sales and advertising of journal articles or subscriptions.…”

Creating and using real-world evidence to answer questions about clinical effectiveness

“…However, despite all attempts to reduce the risk of bias, there are concerns that funding source may bias trial results,8 , 9 though there is not a consensus about this 10 , 11. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research has to some extent sought to address this gap,12 though this does not address the study of RWE per se .…”