Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.
- Bassler D Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Mueller KF Center for Pediatric Clinical Studies, University Children's Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
- Briel M Department of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
- Kleijnen J School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Marusic A Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
- Wager E Sideview, Princes Risborough, Bucks, UK.
- Antes G German Cochrane Centre, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
- von Elm E Cochrane Switzerland, IUMSP, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Altman DG Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Meerpohl JJ German Cochrane Centre, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
- 2016-01-24
Published in:
- BMJ open. - 2016
Dissemination bias
MEDICAL ETHICS
OPEN Project
Publication Bias
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Biomedical Research
Clinical Trials as Topic
Consensus
Humans
Information Dissemination
Publication Bias
English
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings.
SETTING
We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications.
PARTICIPANTS
Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search.
INTERVENTIONS
The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES
We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?).
CONCLUSIONS
Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.
The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings.
SETTING
We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications.
PARTICIPANTS
Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search.
INTERVENTIONS
The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES
We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?).
CONCLUSIONS
Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- gold
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010024
- PMID 26801469
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/236396
Statistics
Document views: 39
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0