Abstract
Clinical practice and public health policy decisions depend on high-quality information about research findings. However, growing evidence shows widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. Problematic issues include (but are not limited to) non-reporting or delayed reporting of entire studies;1 omission of crucial information in the description of research methods2 and interventions;3 selective reporting of only some outcomes;4 presenting data and graphs in confusing and misleading ways;5 and omissions from or misinterpretation of results in abstracts.6 These deficiencies have serious consequences for clinical practice, research, policy making, and ultimately for patients. We illustrate the seriousness of the problem with several examples. In 1999, Drummond Rennie highlighted several systematic reviews7 8 9 that had identified multiple non-transparent publications of the same trials; this publication bias artificially created an impression of much larger support for the efficacy of studied interventions.10 More recently, Dwan et al summarised the evidence from 16 cohort studies that assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials.4 Studies reporting positive or significant results were more likely to be published, and outcomes that were statistically significant were more likely to be fully reported. Also, discrepancies between the publications and original protocols were common: 40–62% of studies had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, newly introduced, or omitted. Chan and Altman2 assessed reporting of methodological information in 519 randomised trials published in 2000. Fewer than half included an adequate description of the sample size calculation, primary outcomes, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and handling of attrition (all of which are crucial to assess the validity of trial findings). Evidence is accumulating that use of reporting guidelines can improve the completeness and transparency of publications.11 12 Reporting guidelines specify a minimum set …
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research
Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40 (1): 35–53 Abstract Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an inter...
Quality of Reporting of Clinical Trials of Dogs and Cats and Associations with Treatment Effects
Background: To address concerns about the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials, and the potential for biased treatment effects in poorly reported trials, medical...
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between signifi...
Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement
To examine the extent to which the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines improved clinical trials reporting and subject attrition, which may ...
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process, although the actual impact of such bias depends on specific circumstances. The prospective registration of c...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2009
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 132-134
- Citations
- 57
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1136/ebm.14.5.132
- PMID
- 19794009