Publication bias, also called the positive outcome bias, is typically the tendency for researchers to publish experimental results that have a positive result (found something), while consequently not publishing findings which have a negative result (found that something did not happen). As such, this may distort meta-analysis of large numbers of studies. The problem is particularly significant when the research is sponsored by entities that may have a financial interest in achieving favourable results.
In September2004, editors of several prominent medical journals (including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA) announced that they would no longer publish results of drug research sponsored from pharmaceutical companies unless that research was registered in a public database from the start. [1] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/09/1094530773888.html) In this way, negative results should no longer be able to disappear.
Publicationbias is the tendency to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings [1].
Publicationbias is particularly problematic when pooled analyses are performed as it leads to an overestimation of the effect size [2,3].
Nevertheless, publicationbias was still evident from the higher impact of publications with positive results, which is is in accordance with the observation of a higher susceptibility for publicationbias in higher impact journals [4,6].
The possibility that anti-nutrition bias may be explained by the reduced profitability of therapeutic nutrition as compared to drug therapy is obviously very relevant today, however, it hardly seems likely that this was a significant factor 200 years ago when nutrition was first relegated to the realms of quackery (10).
Publicationbias, whether the result of the refusal of researchers to submit to journals or the refusal of journal editors to publish submitted articles, may cause a significant overestimation of the effectiveness of the trialled treatment or drug (26).
Although medical bias against alternative therapies may be partly the result of the priority doctors give to conformity with their colleagues as compared to the importance with which they regard their patients (2), this is not a complete explanation.
Feeds |
Contact