Premium
Biomedical journals lack a consistent method to detect outcome reporting bias: a cross‐sectional analysis
Author(s) -
Huan L. N.,
Tejani A. M.,
Egan G.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.622
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2710
pISSN - 0269-4727
DOI - 10.1111/jcpt.12172
Subject(s) - cross sectional study , outcome (game theory) , medicine , psychology , statistics , family medicine , mathematics , pathology , mathematical economics
Summary What is known and objective An increasing amount of recently published literature has implicated outcome reporting bias ( ORB ) as a major contributor to skewing data in both randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews; however, little is known about the current methods in place to detect ORB . This study aims to gain insight into the detection and management of ORB by biomedical journals. Methods This was a cross‐sectional analysis involving standardized questions via email or telephone with the top 30 biomedical journals (2012) ranked by impact factor. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was excluded leaving 29 journals in the sample. Results Of 29 journals, 24 (83%) responded to our initial inquiry of which 14 (58%) answered our questions and 10 (42%) declined participation. Five (36%) of the responding journals indicated they had a specific method to detect ORB , whereas 9 (64%) did not have a specific method in place. The prevalence of ORB in the review process seemed to differ with 4 (29%) journals indicating ORB was found commonly, whereas 7 (50%) indicated ORB was uncommon or never detected by their journal previously. The majority ( n = 10/14, 72%) of journals were unwilling to report or make discrepancies found in manuscripts available to the public. Although the minority, there were some journals ( n = 4/14, 29%) which described thorough methods to detect ORB . What is new and conclusion Many journals seemed to lack a method with which to detect ORB and its estimated prevalence was much lower than that reported in literature suggesting inadequate detection. There exists a potential for overestimation of treatment effects of interventions and unclear risks. Fortunately, there are journals within this sample which appear to utilize comprehensive methods for detection of ORB , but overall, the data suggest improvements at the biomedical journal level for detecting and minimizing the effect of this bias are needed.