Editor's Choice | This Week in BMJ | Press releases



BMJ No 7109 Volume 315

Papers Saturday 13 September 1997


Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects

Jerome M Stern, R John Simes

Table 1-Characteristics of eligible studies
Characteristic No (%) of studies
All studies (n=748)
Research design:
   Observational study 165 (22)
   Clinical trial 418 (56)
   Non-trial experiment 165 (22)
Pilot study:
   Pilot study 39 (5)
   Non-pilot study 709 (95)
Study groups:
   Uncontrolled 392 (52)
   Controlled (non-concurrent, historical) 5 (1)
   Controlled (concurrent) 351 (47)
Clinical trials (n=418)
Clinical trial phase:
   1 18 (4)
   2 178 (43)
   3 221 (53)
   4 1 (<1)
Pilot study:
   Pilot study 22 (5)
   Non-pilot study 396 (95)
Study groups:
   Uncontrolled 142 (34)
   Controlled (historical) 3 (1)
   Controlled (concurrent), non-randomised 76 (18)
   Controlled, randomised 197 (47)
Placebo controlled study:
   Placebo controlled 81 (19)
   Not placebo controlled 337 (81)
Blinded treatment (single or double blind):
   Blinded 107 (26)
   Non-blinded 311 (74)

Table 2-Stage of studies for 520 questionnaires with completed questionnaires
Stage No of studies
Not started:
   Abandoned 97
   Yet to be started 3
Started:
   Abandoned 70
   Still in progress 63
   Completed 287

Table 3-Outcome (results) of quantitative and qualitative studies

 
All analysed studies Clinical trials
Quantitative studies
 

 
Total No 218 130
Results:
   Significant 146 (67) 76 (58)
   Non-significant trend 20 (9) 15 (12)
   Non-significant 52 (24) 39 (30)
Qualitative studies
Total No 103 37
Results:

   Striking 27 (26) 6 (16)
   Important and definite 59 (57) 18 (49)
   Unimportant and negative 17 (17) 13 (35)

Table 4-Risk factors for time to publication using univariate Cox regression analysis
Characteristic No not published No published Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value
All studies (n=321)



Outcome:



   Quantitative studies:


<0.0001
      Null 29 23 1.00
      Non-significant trend 16 4 0.39 (0.13 to 1.12)
      Significant 47 99 2.32 (1.47 to 3.66)
   Qualitative studies:


0.25
      Negative and unimportant 8 9 1.00
      Important and definite 24 35 1.22 (0.59 to 2.55)
      Striking 8 19 1.56 (0.70 to 3.45)
Research design:


0.008
   Observational study 42 48 1.00
   Clinical trial 71 96 1.03 (0.73 to 1.46)
   Non-trial experiment 19 45 1.74 (1.15 to 2.61)
Funding:


0.02
   Internal or none 59 58 1.00
   External 73 133 1.45 (1.06 to 1.99)
Pilot study:


0.07
   Non-pilot study 120 183 1.00
   Pilot study 12 6 0.51 (0.23 to 1.15)
Study groups:


0.02
   Non-comparative 62 100 1.00
   Comparative 70 89 0.72 (0.54 to 0.96)
Scientific importance:


<0.0001
   Low 74 51 1.00
   High 58 138 2.35 (1.69 to 3.26)
Sample size:


0.44
   <100 80 100 1.00
   |LX100 52 82 1.12 (0.84 to 1.51)
Clinical trials (n=167)



Outcome:



   Quantitative trials:


<0.0001
      Null 24 15 1.00
      Non-significant trend 12 3 0.46 (0.13 to 1.59)
      Significant 21 55 3.13 (1.76 to 5.58)
   Qualitative trials:


0.39
      Negative and unimportant 4 9 1.00
      Important and definite 7 11 0.97 (0.40 to 2.36)
      Striking 3 3 0.53 (0.14 to 1.95)
Clinical trial phase:


0.13
   1 3 5 1.15 (0.45 to 2.91)
   2 22 40 1.00
   3 46 51 0.67 (0.44 to 1.02)
   4 0 0

Study groups:


0.02
   Non-comparative 19 33 1.00
   Comparative (non-randomised) 10 17 1.07 (0.60 to 1.93)
   Randomised 42 46 0.61 (0.39 to 0.96)

graph

Fig 1-Proportion of quantitative studies not published, according to type of results.


graph

Table 4-Risk factors for time to publication using univariate Cox regression analysis

Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects


Home | Current contents | Past issues | Classified ads | Career Focus | Feedback
Collections | About this site | About the BMJ | BMA | Medline