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

JAMA. 1998;280:1232.

In the Peer Review article entitled "Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting," published in the July 15, 1998, issue of THE JOURNAL (1998;280:254-256), the Figure was printed with the incorrect inset graph. The inset graph should be a linear plot of the studies accepted for presentation, not a log axis plot. Figure 1 is correct as shown here.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window] Funnel plot of all 122 prospective studies submitted to the meeting that reported effect sizes (see text). Studies subsequently accepted for presentation at the meeting are plotted separately from those rejected. Inset graph similarly shows results for all submitted research with effect-size data at the journal publication level. The absence of the left (negative) base of the inverted funnel region suggests the presence of selection bias in favor of positive outcomes.

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making
Olson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2825-2828.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated With Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals
Callaham et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2847-2850.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT