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?

Lisa A. Bero, PhD; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD; Drummond Rennie, MD

JAMA. 1994;272(2):133-136.

Abstract
Objective.
—To examine the tobacco industry's claim that publication bias against negative studies invalidates the risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and other reviews of the health effects of ETS.

Design.
—Determination of the number of published original research articles that tested the hypothesis that ETS exposure is associated with adverse health effects and that reported statistically significant ("positive") or nonsignificant ("negative") results; the number of articles that concluded that ETS is a health risk; and unpublished studies on the effects of ETS on health.

Participants.
—Articles identified by a computerized search of the medical literature supplemented with material obtained from the tobacco industry and hand searching. Articles were classified as peer-reviewed journal articles or articles from sponsored symposia.

Main Outcome Measure.
—The statistical significance of results reported in the article and whether or not the article concluded that ETS exposure is a health risk.

Results.
—More symposium articles than journal articles were reviews (46% vs 6%; P=.0001). More original journal articles than original symposium articles reported the use of statistical tests (96% vs 54%; P=.0001). Of articles with statistical analyses, similar proportions of journal articles and symposium articles reported statistically significant results (57% vs 47%; P=.329). The conclusions of 80% of the original journal articles were positive, compared with 51% of the original symposium articles (P=.006).

Conclusions.
—There is no publication bias against statistically nonsignificant results on ETS in the peer-reviewed literature. The high proportion of articles in symposia that reach the conclusion that ETS is not harmful primarily results from the inclusion of review articles.

(JAMA. 1994;272:133-136)

Author Affiliations
From the Institute for Health Policy Studies (Drs Bero, Glantz, and Rennie) and Division of Cardiology (Dr Glantz), School of Medicine, and Division of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (Dr Bero), University of California—San Francisco.

Footnotes
Presented in part at the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, September 11, 1993.

Reprint requests to Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California—San Francisco, 1388 Sutter St, 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94109 (Dr Bero).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent
Taylor et al.
Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:1048-1059.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Creation of Industry Front Groups: The Tobacco Industry and "Get Government Off Our Back"
Apollonio and Bero
AJPH 2007;97:419-427.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke
Schick and Glantz
Tobacco Control 2005;14:396-404.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Injury as a Field of Public Health: Achievements and Controversies
Bonnie and Guyer
J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:267-280.
 

Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places
Dearlove et al.
Tobacco Control 2002;11:94-104.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Philip Morris' new scientific initiative: an analysis
HIRSCHHORN et al.
Tobacco Control 2001;10:247-252.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: a review of internal industry documents
Drope and Chapman
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2001;55:588-594.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Lung cancer and passive smoking
Johnson et al.
BMJ 2000;321:1221-1221.
FULL TEXT  

Reanalysis of epidemiological evidence on lung cancer and passive smoking
Copas and Shi
BMJ 2000;320:417-418.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Print media coverage of research on passive smoking
Kennedy and Bero
Tobacco Control 1999;8:254-260.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias and Research on Passive Smoking: Comparison of Published and Unpublished Studies
Misakian and Bero
JAMA 1998;280:250-253.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Lung cancer and passive smoking
Hackshaw
Stat Methods Med Res 1998;7:119-136.
ABSTRACT  

Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Mechanisms and Risk
Glantz and Parmley
JAMA 1995;273:1047-1053.
ABSTRACT  

Are the Peers Peers?
Gruder et al.
JAMA 1995;273:522-522.
ABSTRACT