Healthy Skepticism Library item: 4336

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL.
Factors influencing publication of research results: Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards
JAMA 1992; 267:374-378

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE.—To investigate factors associated with the publication of research findings, in particular, the association between “significant” results and publication. DESIGN.—Follow-up study. SETTING.—Studies approved in 1980 or prior to 1980 by the two institutional review boards that serve The Johns Hopkins Health Institutions—one that serves the School of Medicine and Hospital and the other that serves the School of Hygiene and Public Health. POPULATION.—A total of 737 studies were followed up. RESULTS.—Of the studies for which analyses had been reported as having been performed at the time of interview, 81% from the School of Medicine and Hospital and 66% from the School of Hygiene and Public Health had been published. Publication was not associated with sample size, presence of a comparison group, or type of study (eg, observational study vs clinical trial). External funding and multiple data collection sites were positively associated with publication. There was evidence of publication bias in that for both institutional review boards there was an association between results reported to be significant and publication (adjusted odds ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.63 to 3.94). Contrary to popular opinion, publication bias originates primarily with investigators, not journal editors: only six of the 124 studies not published were reported to have been rejected for publication. CONCLUSION.—There is a statistically significant association between significant results and publication.

The publication rate for drug industry-funded studies in one medical centre was considerably lower than for National Institutes of Health-funded studies. There was no indication, however, that the tendency to publish significant results was any different for industry-funded than for National Institutes of Health-funded studies.

Keywords:
*systematic review/United States/drug company sponsored research/publication bias/IRB/Institutional Research Board/SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH Academic Medical Centers Baltimore Bias (Epidemiology) Biomedical Research* Editorial Policies* Ethics Committees, Research Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Male Odds Ratio Peer Review* Publishing/statistics & numerical data* Research Design/standards Research Personnel/education Research Personnel/statistics & numerical data* Research Support/economics Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Sampling Studies