 |
|
Publication Bias
The Problem and Some Suggestions
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156:424-425.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
IN THIS issue of the ARCHIVES, Klassen et al1
contribute an interesting article on the problem of publication bias. They
examined abstracts presented at Society for Pediatric Research meetings from
1992 through 1995 and found that only 59% of randomized controlled trials
presented at the meetings were subsequently published. Abstracts were more
likely to be published as a full study if, using some criteria for statistical
significance, they either reported that the outcomes of the treated group
were superior to those of the control group or reported that a newer therapy
was at least equivalent to an older treatment. To rephrase this in the other
direction, studies were more often sent to oblivion if they failed to report
good news about newer therapies.
The study by Klassen et al has important implications for how research
is conducted, published, and interpreted. Conscientious physicians who seek
the best therapy based on published . . . [Full Text of this Article]
RELATED ARTICLE
Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Presented at the Society for Pediatric Research Meeting: An Example of Publication Bias
Terry P. Klassen, Natasha Wiebe, Kelly Russell, Kelly Stevens, Lisa Hartling, William R. Craig, and David Moher
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(5):474-479.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Registration of Clinical Trials
Rivara
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:685-685.
FULL TEXT
A National Survey of Provisions in Clinical-Trial Agreements between Medical Schools and Industry Sponsors
Schulman et al.
NEJM 2002;347:1335-1341.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
