UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus


Bassler, Dirk; Mueller, Katharina F; Briel, Matthias; Kleijnen, Jos; Marusic, Ana; Wager, Elizabeth; Antes, Gerd; von Elm, Erik; Altman, Douglas G; Meerpohl, Joerg J (2016). Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus. BMJ Open, 6(1):e010024.

Abstract

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'.

Abstract

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'.

Altmetrics

Downloads

4 downloads since deposited on 20 Jun 2016
4 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Neonatology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:21 January 2016
Deposited On:20 Jun 2016 08:03
Last Modified:26 Jun 2016 09:02
Publisher:BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:2044-6055
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010024
PubMed ID:26801469

Download

[img]
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 810kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations