Publication Bias and Research on Passive Smoking

Anastasia L. Misakian · Lisa Anne Bero

127 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Smoking Behavior and Cessation Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

CONTEXT: The results of reviews may be biased by delays in publication and failure to publish nonsignificant results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of unpublished results on the health effects of passive smoking and whether passive smoking studies with statistically nonsignificant results would have longer time to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. DESIGN: Semistructured telephone interviews of principal investigators of published or unpublished studies funded between 1981 and 1995, identified by information obtained from 76 (85%) of 89 organizations contacted that potentially funded research on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. PARTICIPANTS: 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OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to publication for published studies and statistical significance of results of published and unpublished studies. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 61 studies were unpublished. Median time to publication was 5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 4-7 years) for statistically nonsignificant studies and 3 years (95% CI, 3-5 years) for statistically significant studies (P=.004). Statistically significant results (P=.004), experimental study design (P=.01), study size less than or equal to 500 (P=.01), and animals as subjects (P=.03) were predictive of time to publication. When the studies with human participants were analyzed separately, only statistically significant data were predictive of publication (P=.007). Multivariate analysis of all studies indicated that statistical significance (P=.001) and study design (P=.01) were the only independent predictors of time to publication, while for the human studies only statistical significance was predictive of publication (P=.007). CONCLUSION: There is a publication delay for passive smoking studies with nonsignificant results compared with those with significant results.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 127 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Publication bias in clinical research 1992Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results 1997Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects 1986Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.1987Publication bias and clinical trials 1998Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials 1993Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away 1995The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care

Cited by

2005Public Health Chronicles 2004Scientific authorship 2009Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort 2006The fading of reported effectiveness. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials 2002How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.