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 (75)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Carin M. Olson, MD; Drummond Rennie, MD; Deborah Cook, MD,MSc,FRCPC; Kay Dickersin, PhD; Annette Flanagin, RN,MA; Joseph W. Hogan, ScD; Qi Zhu, MS; Jennifer Reiling; Brian Pace, MA

JAMA. 2002;287:2825-2828.

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<.05) reported for the primary outcome. Study characteristics and indicators for quality were also appraised. We included manuscripts that reported prospective studies in which participants were assigned to an intervention or comparison group and statistical tests compared differences between groups.

Results  Among 745 manuscripts, 133 (17.9%) were published: 78 (20.4%) of 383 with positive results, 51 (15.0%) of 341 with negative results, and 4 (19.0%) of 21 with unclear results. The crude relative risk for publication of studies with positive results compared with negative results was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.88). After being adjusted simultaneously for study characteristics and quality indicators, the odds ratio for publishing studies with positive results was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.87-1.96).

Conclusions  Among submitted manuscripts, we did not find a statistically significant difference in publication rates between those with positive vs negative results.

Author Affiliations: JAMA, Chicago, Ill (Drs Olson, Rennie, and Cook, Mss Flanagin and Reiling, and Mr Pace); Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Olson); Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Rennie); Departments of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology, and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (Dr Cook); and Department of Community Health (Drs Dickersin and Hogan and Ms Zhu) and Center for Statistical Sciences (Dr Hogan), Brown University, Providence, RI.

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

RELATED LETTERS

Idiopathic vs Hereditary Pancreatitis
F. Ulrich Weiss, Peter Simon, Carsten Hohoff, Klaus Peter Zimmer, Wolfram Domschke, and Markus M. Lerch
JAMA. 2003;289(8):985.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Registering Clinical Trials—Reply
Kay Dickersin and Drummond Rennie
JAMA. 2003;290(19):2546.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

June 5, 2002
JAMA. 2002;287(21):2875-2876.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Outcome Reporting in Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for Off-Label Use
Vedula et al.
NEJM 2009;361:1963-1971.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Important Science--It's All about the SPIN
Casadevall and Fang
Infect. Immun. 2009;77:4177-4180.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Editorial Policies and Publication Bias: The Importance of Negative Studies
Sridharan and Greenland
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1022-1023.
FULL TEXT  

Nonscientific Factors Associated with Acceptance for Publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume)
Okike et al.
JBJS 2008;90:2432-2437.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publication bias in qualitative research: what becomes of qualitative research presented at conferences?
Petticrew et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008;62:552-554.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias in Orthopaedic Research: An Analysis of Scientific Factors Associated with Publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume)
Okike et al.
JBJS 2008;90:595-601.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ethical Considerations in the Interpretation and Communication of Clinical Trial Results
Coultas
Proc Am Thorac Soc 2007;4:194-199.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Viewpoint on Evidence-based Health Informatics, Based on a Pilot Survey on Evaluation Studies in Health Care Informatics
Ammenwerth and de Keizer
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:368-371.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Statistical and Clinical Interpretation of Research Results
Allison
J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 2007;97:165-170.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer-reviewed publication of clinical trials completed for pediatric exclusivity.
Benjamin et al.
JAMA 2006;296:1266-1273.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Posttraumatic Stress in Youth Experiencing Illnesses and Injuries: An Exploratory Meta-Analysis
Kahana et al.
Traumatology 2006;12:148-161.
ABSTRACT  

Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance
Ross et al.
JAMA 2006;295:1675-1680.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review
Bell et al.
BMJ 2006;332:699-703.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bias in Clinical Intervention Research
Gluud
Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:493-501.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Sufficiency and Stability of Evidence for Public Health Interventions Using Cumulative Meta-Analysis
Muellerleile and Mullen
AJPH 2006;96:515-522.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review and Professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine
Emanuel and Greenland
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2559-2560.
FULL TEXT  

The Accuracy of Diagnostic Imaging for the Assessment of Chronic Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Termaat et al.
JBJS 2005;87:2464-2471.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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

Recent Developments in Health Law
J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:384-403.
 

Acute Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Taban et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:613-620.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Interaction Between an 11{beta}HSD1 Gene Variant and Birth Era Modifies the Risk of Hypertension in Pima Indians
Franks et al.
Hypertension 2004;44:681-688.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Factors Influencing the Publication of Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health Research
Hartling et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:983-987.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

High-Dose Statins in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Not Just Lipid Levels
Nissen
JAMA 2004;292:1365-1367.
FULL TEXT  

A Low, Rather than a High, Total Plasma Homocysteine Is an Indicator of Poor Outcome in Hemodialysis Patients
Kalantar-Zadeh et al.
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2004;15:442-453.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Registering Clinical Trials--Reply
Dickersin and Rennie
JAMA 2003;290:2546-2546.
FULL TEXT  

Idiopathic vs Hereditary Pancreatitis
Weiss et al.
JAMA 2003;289:985-985.
FULL TEXT  

Association Between Time Interval to Publication and Statistical Significance
Dickersin et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2829-2831.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT