This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • 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

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr von Elm and colleagues¹ identified patterns of duplicate publication by investigating articles included in systematic reviews of anesthesia and analgesia. They noted that duplicate publication is wasteful of the time and resources of editors, peer reviewers, and readers and may change the conclusions of systematic reviews. In addition, it undermines the integrity of science, particularly in the case of covert duplicate publication. In medicine, the impact of this practice is particularly serious in that the health and life of patients may be affected when the results of a study are effectively counted more than once.²

Since at least the 1970s,³ prospective registration of controlled trials has been encouraged as a means of achieving transparency in which studies are undertaken, and as a means of addressing the problem of publication bias (selective publication of positive results) and duplicate publication. Although current registration systems are not yet comprehensive, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Gerd Antes, PhD
antes@cochrane.edu
German Cochrane Centre
University Hospital Freiburg
Freiburg, Germany

Kay Dickersin, PhD
US Cochrane Center
Brown Medical School
Providence, RI

RELATED ARTICLE

Different Patterns of Duplicate Publication: An Analysis of Articles Used in Systematic Reviews
Erik von Elm, Greta Poglia, Bernhard Walder, and Martin R. Tramèr
JAMA. 2004;291(8):974-980.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT