CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 427Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPharmaceutical industry and healthcareAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away

DICKERSIN, KAY, MIN, YUAN‐I·1993·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Conclusions about the efficacy and safety of medical interventions are based on data presented in the scientific literature. The validity of these conclusions is threatened if publication bias results from investigators or editors making decisions about publishing study results on the basis of the direction or strength of the study findings. This paper reports meta-analyses performed using data from four prospective investigations in which a total of 997 initiated studies were followed to learn of study results, publication status, and reasons for nonpublication. The analysis indicates that there is a positive association between "significant" study results and publication (OR = 2.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.13 to 3.90). When the analysis was restricted to controlled trials (n = 280), an even stronger relationship between "significant" results and publication was observed (OR = 6.15; 95% CI 2.24 to 16.92), with randomized trials (n = 200) apparently no less susceptible to publication bias than controlled trials in general (OR = 8.72; 95% CI 1.91 to 39.81). In every case, failure to publish was investigator-based, and not due to editorial decisions. The results of clinical trials should not be suppressed in this way. Development of registration systems for randomized trials is essential if this problem is to be minimized in future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Publication bias is likely when drawing generalized conclusions from the published results because null findings may not be reported and statistically significant findings tend to be published.

    “Furthermore, with null findings possibly not being reported and statistically significant findings tending to be published, publication bias is likely when drawing generalized conclusions from these published results [131].”

    From Genetics of child aggression, a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [131]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
DICKERSIN, K., & MIN, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1993-12
Volume
703
Issue
1
Pages
135-148
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
DOI
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x
OpenAlex
W2075571844
Cited by
427
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 19
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4764 d)
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
publication bias, clinical trial registration, significance testing, research integrity
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Professional Staff Committees, Prospective Studies, Publishing, Registries, Research Design, Research Support as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Confidence Intervals, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio

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