This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Correction  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (111)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Michael L. Callaham, MD; Robert L. Wears, MD; Ellen J. Weber, MD; Christopher Barton, MD; Gary Young, MD

JAMA. 1998;280:254-257.

Context.— Studies with positive results are more likely to be published in biomedical journals than are studies with negative results. However, many studies submitted for consideration at scientific meetings are never published in full; bias in this setting is poorly studied.

Objective.— To identify features associated with the fate of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.

Design and Setting.— Prospective observational cohort, with 5-year follow-up of all research submitted for consideration to the major annual 1991 US research meeting in the specialty of emergency medicine.

Participants.— All research abstracts submitted for consideration at the meeting for possible presentation.

Main Outcome Measures.— Characteristics associated with acceptance for presentation at the meeting and subsequent publication as a full manuscript.

Results.— A total of 492 research abstracts were submitted from programs in emergency medicine and other specialies affiliated with 103 US medical schools. A total of 179 (36%) were accepted for presentation and 214 (43%) were published in 44 journals. Of the 179 abstracts accepted for presentation, 111 studies were published. Scientific quality of abstracts or prestige of the journal in which the study was eventually published did not predict either of these outcomes. The best predictors (by logistic regression) of meeting acceptance were a subjective "originality" factor (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.89) and positive results (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.07-3.84), and, for publication, meeting acceptance (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.49-4.35) and large sample size (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.23-4.31). Forty-nine percent (241) of abstracts did not report on blinding, and 24% (118) did not report on randomization. Acceptance and publication were both more likely for positive outcomes (P=.03). Funnel plots showed the classic distribution of positive-outcome ("publication") bias at each of the submission, acceptance, and publication phases. Meeting acceptance predicted publication with a sensitivity of only 51%, specificity of 71%, positive predictive value of 57%, and negative predictive value of 66%.

Conclusions.— Positive-outcome bias was evident when studies were submitted for consideration and was amplified in the selection of abstracts for both presentation and publication, neither of which was strongly related to study design or quality.

From the Division of Emergency Medicine (Drs Weber, Callaham, and Young), University of California, San Francisco; the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida Health Center, Jacksonville (Dr Wears); the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Barton); and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Highland Hospital, Alameda County Medical Center, Oakland, Calif (Dr Young). Dr Young is now with Sacred Heart Medical Center, Eugene, Ore.

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

RELATED ARTICLE

July 15, 1998
JAMA. 1998;280(3):303-304.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Editorial Policies and Publication Bias: The Importance of Negative Studies
Sridharan and Greenland
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1022-1023.
FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias in Orthopaedic Research: An Analysis of Scientific Factors Associated with Publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume)
Okike et al.
JBJS 2008;90:595-601.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Gating Properties of SCN5A Mutations and the Response to Mexiletine in Long-QT Syndrome Type 3 Patients
Ruan et al.
Circulation 2007;116:1137-1144.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials--Reply
Fowler and Van Spall
JAMA 2007;298:39-40.
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  

No Association Between the Common MTHFR 677C->T Polymorphism and Venous Thrombosis: Results From the MEGA Study
Bezemer et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:497-501.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Oral presentation bias: a retrospective cohort study
Decullier and Chapuis
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2007;61:190-193.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Frequency and Determinants of Nonpublication of Research in the Stroke Literature
Sanossian et al.
Stroke 2006;37:2588-2592.
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  

Clinical Trials Registries: A Reform that is Past Due
Gold and Studdert
J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:811-820.
 

Negative Results and Impact Factor: A Lesson From Neonatology
Littner et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:1036-1037.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis
Williamson et al.
Stat Methods Med Res 2005;14:515-524.
ABSTRACT  

Acute Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Taban et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:613-620.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Association Between Compensation Status and Outcome After Surgery: A Meta-analysis
Harris et al.
JAMA 2005;293:1644-1652.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Factors Influencing the Publication of Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health Research
Hartling et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:983-987.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Subsequent Publication of Orally Presented Original Studies within 5 Years after 1995 RSNA Scientific Assembly
Arrive et al.
Radiology 2004;232:101-106.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Industry-Sponsored Economic Studies in Critical and Intensive Care Versus Studies Sponsored by Nonprofit Organizations
Hartmann et al.
J Intensive Care Med 2003;18:265-268.
ABSTRACT  

A Systematic Review of Diabetes Self-Care Interventions for Older, African American, or Latino Adults
Sarkisian et al.
The Diabetes Educator 2003;29:467-479.
ABSTRACT  

Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind?
Dickersin
Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:6-12.
FULL TEXT  

Commentary: Toward systematic reviews in epidemiology
Bracken
Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:954-957.
FULL TEXT  

Research outcomes in British gastroenterology: an audit of the subsequent full publication of abstracts presented at the British Society of Gastroenterology
SANDERS et al.
Gut 2001;49:154a-155.
FULL TEXT  

Prepublication Release of Medical Research
Fontanarosa and Flanagin
JAMA 2000;284:2927-2929.
FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias Is a Scientific Problem with Adverse Ethical Outcomes: The Case for a Section for Null Results
Shields
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:771-772.
FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology
Friedberg et al.
JAMA 1999;282:1453-1457.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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

Complementary Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration
Ezzo et al.
JAMA 1998;280:1628-1630.
FULL TEXT  

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

Unpublished Research From a Medical Specialty Meeting: Why Investigators Fail to Publish
Weber et al.
JAMA 1998;280:257-259.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT