Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals

Jadbinder Seehra · Hadil Khraishi · Nikolaos Pandis

7 citations0/0 files storedBMC Medical Research Methodology

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 scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting statistically significant effect estimates tend to be more frequently published compared to studies reporting non-significant or equivalent estimates. Consequently, this may lead to distortion of the literature. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of reporting statistically significant effect estimates in leading oral health journals and to explore associations between the effect estimates and record characteristics. METHODS: An electronic database search was undertaken of a selection of leading oral health journals including general oral health journals to identify primary oral health records published in 2019. Descriptive statistics and population average GEE logistic regression model was used to assess associations between articles reporting a statistically significant effect estimate and the record characteristics. RESULTS: In 1335 records, 82.4% records reported a statistically significant effect estimate. All speciality journals compared to general oral health journals were less likely to publish a record with significant effect estimates. Authors based in Asia or other (OR 1.49; 95% CI :1.02,2.19; p = 0.037) were more likely to report significant effect estimates compared to those based in Europe. Interventional (OR 0.35; 0.22,0.58; p < 0.001) and observational (OR 0.56; 0.36, 0.89; p = 0.013) records were less likely to report significant effect estimates compared to in-vitro studies. Registered records were less likely to report significant effect estimates when compared to non-registered studies (OR 0.22; 95% CI :0.14,0.32; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The publishing of records with significant effect estimates is prevalent within the oral health literature. To reduce dissemination bias and overestimation of effect sizes in systematic reviews, the publishing of studies with non-significant or equivalent effect estimates should be encouraged.

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 — 7 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research 2015The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science 2011Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries 2013Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review 2010Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases 2001Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies 1992Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results

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.