Titre :
|
Publication bias and research on passive smoking : Comparison of published and unpublished studies. (1998)
|
Auteurs :
|
A.L. MISAKIAN ;
L.A. BERO ;
From the Institute for Health Policy Studies. University of California. San Francisco. USA ;
International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. (1997/09; Prague. CZE)
|
Type de document :
|
Article
|
Dans :
|
JAMA - Journal of the american medical association (n° 3, 1998)
|
Pagination :
|
250-253
|
Langues:
|
Anglais
|
Mots-clés :
|
Article
;
Tabagisme passif
;
Résultat
;
Examen complémentaire
;
Homme
|
Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST TnQR0xKa. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Context. The results of reviews may be biased by delays in publication and failure to publish nonsignificant results. Objective. To determine the extent of unpublished results on the health effects of passive smoking and whether passive smoking studies with statistically nonsignificant results would have longer time to publication than those with statistically significant results. Design. Semistructured telephone interviews of principal investigators of published or unpublished studies funded between 1981 and 1995, identified by information obtained from 76 (85%) of 89 organizations contacted that potentially funded research on passive smoking. Participants. - Seventy-eight investigators were eligible and could be located ; 65 (83%) responded. They had conducted 61 studies of the health effects of passive smoke in humans or animals between 1981 and 1995 that met the criteria for the analysis of time to publication. Main Outcome Measure. Time to publication for published studies and statistical significance of results of published and unpublished studies. Results. Fourteen of the 61 studies were unpublished. Median time to publication was 5 years (95% confidence interval [Cl], 4-7 years) for statistically nonsignificant studies and 3 years (95% Cl, 3-5 years) for statistically significant studies (P=004). (...)
|