This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Thomas C. Chalmers, MD; Cynthia S. Frank; Dinah Reitman, MPS

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1392-1395.

Abstract
Publication bias can be considered to have three stages: (1) Prepublication bias occurs in the performance of research, caused by ignorance, sloth, greed, or the double standard applied to clinical trials but not to clinical practice. (2) Publication bias refers to basing acceptance or rejection of a manuscript on whether it supports the treatment tested. Potentially biased reviewers are of equal concern. (3) Postpublication bias occurs in publishing interpretations, reviews, and meta-analyses of published clinical trials. Bias can be minimized by (1) insisting on high-quality research and thorough literature reviews, (2) eliminating the double standard concerning peer review and informed consent applied to clinical research and practice, (3) publishing legitimate trials regardless of their results, (4) requiring peer reviewers to acknowledge conflicts of interest, (5) replacing ordinary review articles with meta-analyses, and (6) requiring the authors of reviews to acknowledge possible conflicts of interest.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1392-1395)

Author Affiliations
From the Technology Assessment Group, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass (Dr Chalmers and Ms Frank); Boston (Mass) Veterans Administration Medical Center (Dr Chalmers); and Clinical Trials Unit, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY (Dr Chalmers and Ms Reitman).

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to Technology Assessment Group, Harvard School of Public Health, Room LL-7A, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 (Dr Chalmers).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

All Results Count
Naguib and Goldstein
Anesth. Analg. 2009;108:1058-1061.
FULL TEXT  

The Roles of PAX6 and SOX2 in Myopia: Lessons from the 1958 British Birth Cohort
Simpson et al.
IOVS 2007;48:4421-4425.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Commercially Funded and United States-Based Research Is More Likely to Be Published; Good-Quality Studies with Negative Outcomes Are Not
Lynch et al.
JBJS 2007;89:1010-1018.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: Steps 3 and 4--Appraise and Apply Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Halligan and Altman
Radiology 2007;243:13-27.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Critical appraisal and positive outcome bias in case reports published in brazilian dental journals.
Oliveira and Leles
J Dent Educ 2006;70:869-874.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review
Bell et al.
BMJ 2006;332:699-703.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Patient Reminder/Recall Interventions on Immunization Rates: A Review
Szilagyi et al.
JAMA 2000;284:1820-1827.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT  

Reviewing the Reviews: The Example of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Joyce et al.
JAMA 1998;280:264-266.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals: Islands in Search of Continents?
Clarke and Chalmers
JAMA 1998;280:280-282.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 2
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:277-306.
ABSTRACT  

Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions
Barnes and Bero
JAMA 1998;279:1566-1570.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Meta-Analysis of Linkage Data under Worst-Case Conditions: A Demonstration Using the Human OB Region
Allison and Heo
Genetics 1998;148:859-866.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies
Egger and Smith
BMJ 1998;316:61-66.
FULL TEXT  

Industry-Funded Research and Conflict of Interest: An Analysis of Research Sponsored by the Tobacco Industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research
Barnes and Bero
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1996;21:515-542.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating Peer Reviews: Pilot Testing of a Grading Instrument
Feurer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:98-100.
ABSTRACT  

Publication Bias and Public Health Policy on Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Bero et al.
JAMA 1994;272:133-136.
ABSTRACT  

Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process?
Gilbert et al.
JAMA 1994;272:139-142.
ABSTRACT  

Is Successful Prevention Newsworthy?
Weetman
Indoor and Built Environment 1992;1:197-198.
 

Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results: Follow-up of Applications Submitted to Two Institutional Review Boards
Dickersin et al.
JAMA 1992;267:374-378.
ABSTRACT  

Publication Bias: The Triumph of Hope Over Experience
Rennie and Flanagin
JAMA 1992;267:411-412.
ABSTRACT  

The Cantekin Affair
Rennie
JAMA 1991;266:3333-3337.
ABSTRACT