Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. Full publication of trials initially reported as abstracts in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 1980-2000. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. Time to publication as full reports of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in cystic fibrosis. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Bias in reporting clinical trials. Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis.
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.
                To identify features associated with the fate of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.
                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.
                All research abstracts submitted for consideration at the meeting for possible presentation.
                Characteristics associated with acceptance for presentation at the meeting and subsequent publication as a full manuscript.
                A total of 492 research abstracts were submitted from programs in emergency medicine and other specialties 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%.
                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. Abstract Failure to identify all relevant reports of controlled trials is a potential source of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. The present study aims to identify how many reports of trials -initially published as conference abstracts in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine were subsequently published in full. We identified trial reports by handsearching conference abstracts published in the Journal from 1980 to 2000. We then searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and PubMed to determine how many of these had been subsequently published in full. A total of 962 reports of controlled trials was identified from the conference proceedings of 17 medical societies. Of these, 589 (61%) reports of trials were subsequently published in full, and on average within 1-2 years. Handsearching conference abstracts identified a large number of reports of controlled trials, over one-third of which were unpublished and therefore not easily accessible. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent. Large clinical trials are the criterion standard for making treatment decisions, and nonpublication of the results of such trials can lead to bias in the literature and contribute to inappropriate medical decisions.
                To determine the rate of full publication of large randomized trials presented at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), quantify bias against publishing nonsignificant results, and identify factors associated with time to publication.
                Survey of 510 abstracts from large (sample size, > or =200), phase 3, randomized controlled trials presented at ASCO meetings between 1989 and 1998. Trial results were classified as significant (P< or =.05 for the primary outcome measure) or nonsignificant (P>.05 or not reported), and the type of presentation and sponsorship were identified. Subsequent full publication was identified using a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, completed November 1, 2001; the search was updated in November 2002, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Authors were contacted if the searches did not find evidence of publication.
                Publication rate at 5 years; time from presentation to full publication.
                Of 510 randomized trials, 26% were not published in full within 5 years after presentation at the meeting. Eighty-one percent of the studies with significant results had been published by this time compared with 68% of the studies with nonsignificant results (P<.001). Studies with oral or plenary presentation were published sooner than those not presented (P =.002), and studies with pharmaceutical sponsorship were published sooner than studies with cooperative group sponsorship or studies for which sponsorship was not specified (P =.02). These factors remained significant in a multivariable model. The most frequent reason cited by authors for not publishing was lack of time, funds, or other resources.
                A substantial number of large phase 3 trials presented at an international oncology meeting remain unpublished 5 years after presentation. Bias against publishing nonsignificant results is a problem even for large randomized trials. Nonpublication breaks the contract that investigators make with trial participants, funding agencies, and ethics boards. To determine 1) what proportion of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at international conferences on cystic fibrosis (CF) are published as full reports, 2) time to publication, and 3) factors that might delay or prevent publication.
                At the end of 1995, the Cochrane CF Group's register of RCTs contained 199 abstracts describing 180 RCTs. Abstracts were identified by handsearching 44 abstract books of three international CF conferences over a 30-year period. We searched the register for subsequent full reports of these RCTs and used survival analysis to investigate time to publication. Using the log-rank test, we examined 1) whether there is a difference in time to publication between reports where the investigators concluded that the test treatment was as effective as or better than the control treatment, and reports where it was not, and 2) whether there is a difference in time to publication according to sample size.
                Thirty-two percent of the 178 abstracts analyzed were subsequently published in full. Survival analysis indicated that the proportions published before 12 months, 2 years, and 5 years were 8.1%, 29%, and 40% respectively. No difference in time to publication was identified when the abstracts were stratified according to conclusions or sample size; no significant association (P > 0.05) existed between time to publication and both sample size and conclusions together.
                Only a small proportion of abstracts of RCTs presented at international conferences on CF are followed by full publication, and usually only after several years. Therefore, many potentially valuable studies do not reach a wide audience. However, we found no consistent factors which might delay or prevent publication. Publication bias toward studies that favor new therapies has been known to occur for the past 40 years, yet its implications are not well studied in child health. The increased interest in meta-analyses has highlighted the need to identify the totality of evidence when addressing treatment questions.
                To measure the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at a major pediatric scientific meeting that were subsequently published as full-length articles, to investigate factors associated with publication, and to describe the variables that change from abstract to manuscript form.
                The scientific proceedings from the Society for Pediatric Research were hand searched for RCTs (1992-1995). Subsequent publication was ascertained through a search of various electronic databases. Quality of abstracts and manuscripts was measured, and data were extracted using a structured form.
                A total of 264 (59.1%) of 447 abstracts were subsequently published. Almost 64% of RCTs that were subsequently published favored new therapy compared with 43.5% of studies that were never published (P<.001). Mean effect size for published vs unpublished RCTs was 0.74 vs 0.05 (P<.001). Median sample size was larger in published (n = 45) vs unpublished (n = 34) RCTs (P =.02). Quality was significantly lower for abstracts vs published RCTs (P<.001). For 5% of abstracts that were subsequently published, the conclusion regarding treatment efficacy changed.
                Publication bias is a serious threat to assessing the effectiveness of interventions in child health, as little more than half of RCTs presented at a major scientific meeting are subsequently published. There is a need to institute an international registry of RCTs in children so that the totality of evidence can be accessed when assessing treatment effectiveness. The primary aim of the present study was to identify possible occurrence of selective reporting of the results of clinical trials to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. Selective reporting may lead to poorly informed action or inaction by regulatory authorities.
                In 1987, 274 clinical drug trials were notified to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. By December 1993, final reports had been received from 68 of these trials and statements that the trial had been suspended from 24 trials. The sponsors of the non-reported trials were requested to report the outcome. The outcomes, if any, of all reported and non-reported trials were classified as positive, inconclusive or negative.
                The total number of trials with positive, inconclusive or negative outcome were 111, 33 and 44, respectively; the outcomes of 86 trials could not be assessed. Final reports were received from 42/111 (38%) trials with positive, 6/33 (18%) with inconclusive and 9/44 (20%) with negative outcomes.
                Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authority than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes. Prior studies implying associations between receipt of commercial funding and positive (significant and/or pro-industry) research outcomes have analyzed only published papers, which is an insufficiently robust approach for assessing publication bias. In this study, we tested the following hypotheses regarding orthopaedic manuscripts submitted for review: (1) nonscientific variables, including receipt of commercial funding, affect the likelihood that a peer-reviewed submission will conclude with a report of a positive study outcome, and (2) positive outcomes and other, nonscientific variables are associated with acceptance for publication.
                All manuscripts about hip or knee arthroplasty that were submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume, over seventeen months were evaluated to determine the study design, quality, and outcome. Analyses were carried out to identify associations between scientific factors (sample size, study quality, and level of evidence) and study outcome as well as between non-scientific factors (funding source and country of origin) and study outcome. Analyses were also performed to determine whether outcome, scientific factors, or nonscientific variables were associated with acceptance for publication.
                Two hundred and nine manuscripts were reviewed. Commercial funding was not found to be associated with a positive study outcome (p = 0.668). Studies with a positive outcome were no more likely to be published than were those with a negative outcome (p = 0.410). Studies with a negative outcome were of higher quality (p = 0.003) and included larger sample sizes (p = 0.05). Commercially funded (p = 0.027) and United States-based (p = 0.020) studies were more likely to be published, even though those studies were not associated with higher quality, larger sample sizes, or lower levels of evidence (p = 0.24 to 0.79).
                Commercially funded studies submitted for review were not more likely to conclude with a positive outcome than were nonfunded studies, and studies with a positive outcome were no more likely to be published than were studies with a negative outcome. These findings contradict those of most previous analyses of published (rather than submitted) research. Commercial funding and the country of origin predict publication following peer review beyond what would be expected on the basis of study quality. Studies with a negative outcome, although seemingly superior in quality, fared no better than studies with a positive outcome in the peer-review process; this may result in inflation of apparent treatment effects when the published literature is subjected to meta-analysis. To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication.
                Ophthalmology abstracts were identified by review of 1988 and 1989 meeting abstracts for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar studies were identified either from reports contained in our files or through a MEDLINE search, which combined the textword "abstract" with "or" statements to the Medical Subject Headings ABSTRACTING & INDEXING, CLINICAL TRIALS, PEER REVIEW, PERIODICALS, MEDICAL SOCIETIES, PUBLISHING, MEDLINE, INFORMATION SERVICES, and REGISTRIES.
                Ophthalmology abstracts were selected from the meeting proceedings if they reported results from a randomized controlled trial. For the summary study, similar studies were eligible for inclusion if they described followup and subsequent full publication for a cohort of abstracts describing the results of any type of research study. All studies had to have followed up abstracts for at least 24 months to be included.
                Authors of ophthalmology abstracts were contacted by letter to ascertain whether there was subsequent full publication. Other information, including characteristics of the study design possibly related to publication, was taken from the abstract. For the summary study, rates of full publication were taken directly from reported results, as were associations between study factors (ie, "significant" results and sample size) and full publication.
                Sixty-six percent (61/93) of ophthalmology abstracts were published in full. Combined results from 11 studies showed that 51% (1198/2391) of all abstracts were subsequently published in full. Full publication was weakly associated with "significant" results and sample size above the median.
                Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size.
Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.