Publication bias and research on passive smoking : Comparison of published and unpublished studies.
International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Prague, CZE, 1997/09.
The results of reviews may be biased by delays in publication and failure to publish nonsignificant results.
To determine the extent of unpublished results on the health effects of passive smoking and whether passive smoking studies with statistically nonsignificant results would have longer time to publication than those with statistically significant results.
Semistructured telephone interviews of principal investigators of published or unpublished studies funded between 1981 and 1995, identified by information obtained from 76 (85%) of 89 organizations contacted that potentially funded research on passive smoking.
- Seventy-eight investigators were eligible and could be located ; 65 (83%) responded.
They had conducted 61 studies of the health effects of passive smoke in humans or animals between 1981 and 1995 that met the criteria for the analysis of time to publication.
Main Outcome Measure
Time to publication for published studies and statistical significance of results of published and unpublished studies.
Fourteen of the 61 studies were unpublished.
Median time to publication was 5 years (95% confidence interval [Cl], 4-7 years) for statistically nonsignificant studies and 3 years (95% Cl, 3-5 years) for statistically significant studies (P=004). (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Article, Médecine, Tabagisme passif, Délai, Document publié, Résultat, Toxicité, Exploration, Relation, Homme, Littérature scientifique
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Article, Medicine, Passive smoking, Time lag, Published document, Result, Toxicity, Exploration, Relation, Human, Scientific literature
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0445474
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 25/01/1999.