Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials

T (2004) Factors influencing the publication of health research

Objectives: Assess the degree to which research project findings were published and explore factors that influenced publication. Methods: Questionnaire to project leaders. Classification of publications and findings. Chi-squared; univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Results: Forty percent of projects published in peer-reviewed journal; highly statistically significant relationships between publication in peer-reviewed journals and (1) projects in Responsive/Fellowships streams (p = .045); and (2) projects awarded >£22,713 (p = .02); influence of study findings not statistically significant. Conclusions: Funders should consider the significant number of studies that did not result in publication and the higher rate of publication in peer-reviewed journals from some programs

HIV co‐infection is associated with increased transmission risk in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus

Molecular epidemiological analysis of viral pathogens can identify factors associated with increased transmission risk. We investigated the frequency of genetic clustering in a large data set of NS34A, NS5A, and NS5B viral sequences from patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). Within a subset of patients with longitudinal samples, Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis was applied which identified a threshold of 0.02 substitutions/site as most appropriate for clustering. From the 7457 patients with chronic HCV infection included in this analysis, we inferred 256 clusters comprising 541 patients (7.3%). We found that HCV/HIV co-infection, young age, and high HCV viral load were all associated with increased clustering frequency, an indicator of increased transmission risk. In light of previous work on HCV/HIV co-infection in acute HCV cohorts, our results suggest that patients with HCV/HIV co-infection may disproportionately be the source of new HCV infections and treatment efforts should be geared towards viral elimination in this vulnerable population

HIV co‐infection is associated with increased transmission risk in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus

Molecular epidemiological analysis of viral pathogens can identify factors associated with increased transmission risk. We investigated the frequency of genetic clustering in a large data set of NS34A, NS5A, and NS5B viral sequences from patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). Within a subset of patients with longitudinal samples, Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis was applied which identified a threshold of 0.02 substitutions/site as most appropriate for clustering. From the 7457 patients with chronic HCV infection included in this analysis, we inferred 256 clusters comprising 541 patients (7.3%). We found that HCV/HIV co-infection, young age, and high HCV viral load were all associated with increased clustering frequency, an indicator of increased transmission risk. In light of previous work on HCV/HIV co-infection in acute HCV cohorts, our results suggest that patients with HCV/HIV co-infection may disproportionately be the source of new HCV infections and treatment efforts should be geared towards viral elimination in this vulnerable population