This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Medical Practice  • Medical Ethics  • Pediatrics, Other  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Lisa Hartling, BScPT, MSc; William R. Craig, MDCM, FRCPC; Kelly Russell, BSc; Kelly Stevens, BSc; Terry P. Klassen, MD, MSc, FRCPC

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:983-987.

Background  Publication bias threatens the validity of clinical decisions. The root causes are relatively unknown, and there is limited investigation in child research literature.

Objectives  To identify factors associated with subsequent nonpublication of abstracts presented at the Society for Pediatric Research meetings, and to determine the relative importance of the reasons identified for nonpublication.

Design  A cross-sectional survey was used to ask researchers about their reasons for the selective publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The authors of 393 RCTs presented at the Society for Pediatric Research meetings from 1992 to 1995 were surveyed. A modified Total Design Method for mail surveys was used, with a reminder sent to all potential respondents 1 week after the initial mailing and full mailings sent to nonrespondents at 3 and 10 weeks following the initial mailing.

Results  One hundred sixty-six (45%) completed surveys were returned, and 119 (72%) abstracts were published as full manuscripts. Factors significantly associated with nonpublication identified through multiple logistic regression were the respondent’s report of scientific merit and significance of results. Of the 47 studies that were not published, only 8 (17%) had been submitted for publication. Authors of unpublished studies identified the following as important reasons for not publishing: not enough time (56.4 responded important or very important); trouble with coauthors (28.9); and journal unlikely to accept (26.3).

Conclusions  Of the RCTs presented and not subsequently published, the majority (83%) were never submitted for publication. The most common reason cited by authors for nonpublication was lack of time.

Author Affiliations: Alberta Research Centre for Child Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Breaching the Contract: The Ethics of Nonpublication of Research Studies
M. Denise Dowd
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(10):1014-1015.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Creating an Academic Career in Respiratory Medicine: Take-Home Messages From a Unique Symposium
Eikje and Barron
Chest 2007;131:1967-1969.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Trials Registries: A Reform that is Past Due
Gold and Studdert
J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:811-820.
 

Negative Results and Impact Factor: A Lesson From Neonatology
Littner et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:1036-1037.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Should paediatricians support the European Paediatric Clinical Trials Register?
Sammons et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. 2005;90:559-560.
FULL TEXT  

Breaching the Contract: The Ethics of Nonpublication of Research Studies
Dowd
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:1014-1015.
FULL TEXT