Titre : | Publication bias in editorial decision making. (2002) |
Auteurs : | Carin-M OLSON ; Deborah COOK ; K.A.Y. DICKERSIN ; Annette FLANAGIN ; Joseph-W HOGAN ; Brian PACE ; QI ZHU . (.) ; Jennifer REILING ; Drummond RENNIE ; Jama. Chicago (I.I.I.). USA ; Ontario and Department of Community Health and Center for Statistical Sciences. Brown University. Providence. RI. USA |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | JAMA - Journal of the american medical association (vol. 287, n° 21, 2002) |
Pagination : | 2825-2828 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Mots-clés : | Décision ; Homme |
Résumé : | [BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS vR0xKcw0. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Context Studies with positive results are more likely to be published than studies with negative results (publication bias). One reason this occurs is that authors are less likely to submit manuscripts reporting negative results to journals. There is no evidence that publication bias occurs once manuscripts have been submitted to a medical journal. We assessed whether submitted manuscripts that report results of controlled trials are more likely to be published if they report positive results. Methods Prospective cohort study of manuscripts submitted to JAMA from February 1996 through August 1999. We classified results as positive if there was a statistically significant difference (P<. reported for the primary outcome. study char and indicators quality were also appraised. we included manuscripts that prospective studies in which participants assigned to an intervention or comparison group statistical tests compared differences between groups. results among published : of with positive negative unclear results. crude relative risk publication was confidence interval after being adjusted simultaneously characteristics odds ratio publishing cl conclusions submitted did not find a statistically significant difference rates those vs> |