Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19208
Title: The relationship between study findings and publication outcome in anesthesia research: a retrospective observational study examining publication bias.
Austin Authors: Chong, Simon W;Collins, Neil F;Wu, Christine Y;Liskaser, Grace M;Peyton, Philip J 
Affiliation: Department of Anaesthesia, Joondalup Health Campus, Perth, Australia
Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Department of Surgery, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Anaesthesia, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia
Issue Date: Jun-2016
metadata.dc.date: 2016-04-01
Publication information: Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie 2016; 63(6): 682-90
Abstract: Many areas of medicine have shown bias towards the publication of studies with positive results. To estimate publication bias in the anesthesia literature, we reviewed all abstracts presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) annual meetings over a four-year period and compared study results (positive vs negative) with publication outcomes. This review included all abstracts from the 2001-2004 ASA annual meetings performed as randomized-controlled trials in humans. We scored their outcome results as positive or negative and assessed abstract quality using a 13-point scoring system. We then performed a systematic literature search to identify any subsequent publication of the studies and calculated the relative risk (RR) for journal publication by comparing positive vs negative studies. Of 5,918 abstracts reviewed, 1,052 met inclusion criteria, and 564 (53.6%) of the abstracts proceeded to publication. The RR for abstracts with positive results proceeding to journal publication was 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 1.66; P < 0.001). This result did not change significantly after adjusting for study size and abstract quality score during logistic regression modelling. There was no significant difference in the abstract quality score between positive vs negative studies or between abstracts proceeding vs not proceeding to publication. Approximately half of the ASA annual meeting abstracts proceed to publication. After adjustment for study quality and size, abstracts with positive results were more likely to proceed to journal publication than those with negative results, suggesting publication bias in the anesthesia literature.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19208
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-016-0631-0
ORCID: 0000-0003-1185-2869
PubMed URL: 27038290
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.