+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature



Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature



Anesthesia and Analgesia 114(5): 1042-1048



Publication bias occurs because positive finding studies are more likely to be published. The dearth of studies of negative or equivalence findings can erroneously affect future research and potentially clinical care of patients. We hypothesized that positive studies were more likely to be published than negative studies in anesthesiology journals with a higher impact and circulation. A PubMed search for controlled trials in humans published in peer-reviewed anesthesiology journals during 2008 and 2009 was performed. Fourteen anesthesiology journals and 1163 studies were evaluated. The average clinical trial impact factor (average citations per article) for each journal was determined. The quartiles for the clinical trial impact factor for the journals included in the analysis were 4, 6.1, and 9.1. Studies were scored by 2 raters as positive or negative results of the primary stated outcome. Factors previously associated with publication were also extracted. The primary outcome, the proportion of positive and negative studies in the journals in the upper quartile of the clinical trial impact factor to the lower quartiles was compared using the Fisher exact test. The odds ratio for the effect of positive study results adjusted for other characteristics associated with publication was determined using binary logistic regression. A multinomial logistic regression model was fitted for the journals with an impact factor in the upper quartile with adjustment for study trial registration, origin of publication, positive study findings, reporting of treatment blinding, reporting of subject withdrawals, study sponsorship, and description of the randomization method. Positive finding studies were identified in 72% (425 of 588) of articles in journals with a clinical trial impact factor >9.1 compared with 53% (308 of 575) in journals <9.1 (P < 0.001). After adjusting for factors associated with publication, positive study results had an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 2.28 (1.76-3.01) for publication in an anesthesiology journal in the upper quartile. Multinomial logistic regression identified positive study findings associated with an increased likelihood of publication in 3 of the 4 anesthesiology journals with a clinical trial impact factor >9.1. This study reports the presence of publication bias in the anesthesiology literature especially in higher clinical trial impact factor journals. Publication bias can have potential implications for future research and the clinical care of patients. Authors should be encouraged to submit negative studies to high impact journals and the journals should be encouraged to evaluate the editorial process as the cause of publication bias.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055285042

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22344237

DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182468fc6


Related references

Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature: shifting the focus from the "positive" to the "truth". Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 63(6): 658-663, 2017

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2017

Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data. Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 12(3): 611-617, 2018

Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: mandatory publication of data may help. Bmj 331(7517): 638-638, 2005

Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: studies on publication bias are probably susceptible to the bias they study. Bmj 331(7517): 637-638, 2005

The specter of publication bias: adjustment for publication bias in the evidence on cardiac death associated with passive smoking in nonsmoking women. International Journal of Cardiology 149(3): 388-389, 2011

Examining publication bias-a simulation-based evaluation of statistical tests on publication bias. Peerj 5: E4115, 2017

Literature is subject to publication bias. Deutsches Arzteblatt International 106(18): 320; Author Reply 321-2, 2009

Publication bias in the neighbourhood effects literature. Geoforum 70: 89-92, 2016

Publication Bias and the Under-Reporting of Complications in the Literature. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 134: 42-43, 2014

A review of publication bias in the gastroenterology literature. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 37(1): 58-62, 2018

Publication Bias in Animal Welfare Scientific Literature. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26(5): 945-958, 2013

The importance of publication bias in medical-scientific literature. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 137(42): 2126-2130, 1993

A survey identified publication bias in the secondary literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59(3): 241-245, 2006

Analysis of publication bias in the literature for distal radius fracture. Journal of Hand Surgery 38(5): 927-934.E5, 2014