Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework Is Required to Reduce Publication Bias The Academic Surgeon's View

  • Chapter
Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology

  • 2772 Accesses

Abstract

Publication bias refers to the tendency of researchers, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study, leading to a bias in selective publication of studies with positive outcomes. The existence of publication bias in surgical literature has been well-documented. Publication bias leads to misleading conclusion in metaanalysis of clinical trials as negative studies are underrepresented. As a result, inappropriate investigations or treatments may be recommended to patients. To reduce publication bias in surgical literature, a framework of measures directed at individual investigators, institutions, reviewers, and editors of journals are outlined in this chapter. Compulsory registration of all clinical trials in public registry and online open access journals for publication of all trials, irrespective of positive or negative results, are particularly important measures to reduce publication bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, Gutierrez JP et al (2005) Ethics and scientific publication. Adv Physiol Educ 29:59–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bown MJ, Sutton AJ, Bell PR et al (2002) A meta-analysis of 50 years of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg 89:714–730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ et al (1998) Positive-outcome and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 280:254–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chalmers I (1990) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263:1405–1408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chalmers I (1993) Publication bias. Lancet 342:1116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT et al (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials. Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364:911–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Bellefeuille C, Morrision C, Tannock I (1992) The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influ-ence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol 3:187–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263:1385–1389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC et al (1987) Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 8:343–353

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickerson K, Min Y, Meinert CL (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267:374–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R et al (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337;867–872

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Egger M, David Smith G et al (1998) Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316:61–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Egger M, David Smith G et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M et al (1997) Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350:326–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, Heinonen OP et al (1987) Helsinski heart study: primary prevention trial with gemfi-brozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. N Engl J Med 317:1237–1245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Frick MH, Heinonen OP, Huttunen JK et al (1993) Efficacy of gemfibrozil in dyslipidemic subjects with suspected heart disease. An ancillary study in the Helsinki heart study frame population. Ann Med 25:41–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gardner MJ, Altman DG (1986) Confidence intervals rather than p values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292:746–750

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall JC, Hall JL (2002) Randomisation in surgical trials. Surgery 132:513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harewood GC (2005) Assessment of publication bias in the reporting of EUS performance in staging rectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 100:808–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Horton R (1996) Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 347:984–985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jorgensen A, Bach KF, Friis K (2004) Good clinical practice is now obligatory in academic clinical drug research in the European Union. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 94:57–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Krleza-Jeric K, Chan A, Dickersin K et al (2005) Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1). BMJ 330:956–958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF (2003) Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 290:495–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahoney MJ (1977) Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res 1:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Manninen V (1983) Clinical results with gemfibrozil and background to the Helsinski heart study. Am J Cardiol 5:35–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Meakins JL (2006) Evidence-based surgery. Surg Clin N Am 86:1–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM (2005) Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 352:2202–2210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D et al (2002) Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 287:2825–2828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rennie D, Flanagin A (1992) Publication bias. The triumph of hope over experience. JAMA 267:411–412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sauerland S, Seiler CM (2005) Role of systemic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg 29:582–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sharp DW (1990) What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor. JAMA 263:1390–1391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Simes RJ (1986) The case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 4:1529–1541

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Steinbrook R (2004) Public registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med 22;351:315–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stern JM, Simes RJ (1997) Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort of clinical research projects. 315:640–645

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL et al (2000) Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 320:1574–1577

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Syin D, Woreta T, Chang DC et al (2007). Publication bias in surgery: implications for informed consent. J Surg Res 143:88–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL et al (1998) Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting. Why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 280:257–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wells SA Jr (2001) Surgeons and surgical trials — why we must assume a leadership role. Surgery 132:519–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wente MN, Shrikhande SV, Müller MW et al (2007) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 193:171–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yoshimoto Y (2003) Publication bias in neurosurgery: lessens from series of unruptured aneurysms. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 145;45–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Zamakhshary M, Abuznadah W, Zacny J et al (2006) Research publication in pediatric surgery: a cross-sectional study of papers presented at the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons and the American Pediatric Surgery Association. J Pediatr Surg 41:1298–1301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC (2005) Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med 353:2779–2787

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

    Ronnie Tung-Ping Poon & John Wong

Authors
  1. Ronnie Tung-Ping Poon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Biosurgery & Surgical Technology, Imperial College London St. Mary's Hospital London, 10th floor QEQM Bldg. Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, United Kingdom

    Thanos Athanasiou  & Ara Darzi  & 

  2. UCSF Global Health Sciences, 3333 California Street, Suite 285, San Francisco L, CA, 94143-0443, USA

    Haile Debas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Poon, R.TP., Wong, J. (2010). A Framework Is Required to Reduce Publication Bias The Academic Surgeon's View. In: Athanasiou, T., Debas, H., Darzi, A. (eds) Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_24

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71914-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71915-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation