Published versus unpublished dissertations in psycho‐oncology intervention research
Open accessAbstract
Objective: There are conflicting views regarding whether gray literature, including unpublished doctoral dissertations, should be included in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Although publication status frequently is used as a proxy for study quality, some research suggests that dissertations are often of superior quality to published studies. Methods: We examined 107 projects involving doctoral dissertations (42 published, 65 unpublished) that studied psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. Results: Published dissertations were more likely to be supported by research funding but were not more likely than unpublished dissertations to examine specific types of interventions. Across several indices of methodological quality there were minimal differences. Dissertations with significant findings tended to be more likely to be published than those without significant findings. Conclusions: Unpublished dissertations focusing on psychosocial interventions for cancer patients are not necessarily of vastly inferior quality to those that eventually are published. Because doctoral dissertations are easy to access relative to other forms of gray literature, are free from some types of bias, and are reported thoroughly, they merit inclusion in comprehensive literature reviews. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Unpublished and published research are of similar quality.
“Although unpublished studies, such as dissertations, have not gone through the formal peer-review process, unpublished and published research have been found to be of similar quality (McLeod and Weisz 2004; Hopewell et al. 2007; Moyer et al. 2010).”
From Effects of after-school programs with at-risk youth on attendance and externalizing behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Moyer et al. 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 27
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [10]ProQuest Information and Learning. Dissertation Abstracts Online (Dissertations) 2009 Retrieved February 1, 2009 from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSHelp?show=Dissertations:entityhdbname=Dissertations:sessionid=fsapp1-57468-fqo4uq16-1e4aws:entitypagenum=2:0:code=&badcode.
- Authors
- Moyer, A., Schneider, S., Knapp‐Oliver, S. K., & Sohl, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Stony Brook University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Moyer, Anne
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-04-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 313-317
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- PMC
- PMC2832099
- OpenAlex
- W2020311100
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA100810)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Optics and Image Analysis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- unpublished dissertations, grey literature, publication status, psychosocial interventions, cancer patients, methodological quality, research funding, publication bias, systematic reviews, meta-analysis
- MeSH terms
- Academic Dissertations as Topic, Humans, Neoplasms, Social Support, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Chi-Square Distribution, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review