Reporting bias

Biased reporting of research occurs when the direction or statistical significance of results influences whether and how research is reported.


JLL Essay
2.7 Dealing with biased reporting of the available evidence

Produce unbiased and useful research reports

 

FILTER CLEAR FILTERS

SORT date author


FILTER RECORDS BY


Bacon F (1645)
Franc Baconis de Verulamio / Summi Angliae Cancellarii /Novum organum scientiarum. Lugd. Bat: apud Adrianum Wiingaerde, et Franciscum Moiardum. Aphorism XLVI (pages 45-46).

View

Boyle R (1661)
In defense of Experimental Essays. In: Certain Physiological Essays, written at distant times, and on several occasions pp 4-5. London: Printed for Henry Herringman at the Anchor in the Lower walk in the New-Exchange.

View

Gregory J (1772)
Lectures on the duties and qualifications of a physician. London: Strahan and Cadell. (new ed.) Edinburgh: Creech.

View

Withering W (1785)
An account of the foxglove and some of its medical uses: with practical remarks on dropsy and other diseases. London: J and J Robinson.

View

Fowler T (1786)
Medical reports of the effects of arsenic in the cure of agues, remitting fevers and periodic headachs. London: J Johnson, pp 105-107.

View

Currie J (1797)
Medical reports on the effects of water, cold and warm, as a remedy in fever, and febrile diseases. Liverpool and London: M’Creery and Cadell.

View

Haygarth J (1800)
Of the imagination, as a cause and as a cure of disorders of the body: exemplified by fictitious tractors, and epidemical convulsions. Bath: R. Crutwell.

View

Carlisle A (1839)
On the production of representations of objects by the action of light. Mechanics Journal p 329.

View

Holmes OW (1861)
Currents and countercurrents in medical science with other addresses and essays. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1861.

View

Bennett JH (1865)
The restorative treatment of pneumonia. Edinburgh, AC Black.

View

Editorial (1909)
The reporting of unsuccessful cases. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 161:263-263.

View

Wesselhoeft W (1915)
Hospital Efficiency from the Standpoint of Hospital Trustees. The New England Journal of Medicine 172:778. 10.1056/NEJM191505271722104

View

Sollmann T (1917)
The crucial test of therapeutic evidence. JAMA 69:198-199.

View

Earp JR (1927)
The need for reporting negative results. JAMA 88:119.

View

Pratt JG, Rhine JB, Smith BM, Stuart CE, Greenwood JA (1940)
Extra-sensory perception after sixty years: a critical appraisal of the research in extra-sensory perception. New York: Henry Holt.

View

Einstein A (1954)
Statement for a conference of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, 3 March. Albert Einstein Archives, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 28-1025.

View

Hill AB (1956)
Discussion of a paper by DJ Finney. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 119:19-20.

View

Sterling TD (1959)
Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association 54:30-34.

View

Kety S (1959)
Comment. In: Cole JO, Gerard RW (eds). Psychopharmacology. Problems in Evaluation. National Academy of Sciences, Publication 583, Washington DC, p 651-652.

View

Cohen J (1962)
The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 65:145-153.

View

Smart RG (1964)
The importance of negative results in psychological research. Canadian Psychologist 5:225-232.

View

Chalmers TC, Koff RS, Grady GF (1965)
A note on fatality in serum hepatitis. Gastroenterology 49:22–26.

View

Hudson J (pseudonym for Crichton M) (1968)
A case of need. The World Publishing Company, New York.

View

Garvey WD, Lin N, Nelson CE (1970)
Communication in the physical and social sciences: the process of disseminating and assimilating information differ in these two groups of science. Science 170:1166-1173.

View

Mahoney MJ (1977)
Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1:161-75.

View

Dudley HAF (1978)
Surgical research: master or servant. The American Journal of Surgery 135:458-460.

View

Hemminki E (1980)
Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. BMJ 280:833-6.

View

Altman DG (1981)
Evaluating a series of clinical trials of the same treatment. Unpublished 7-page summary of the author’s presentation at a meeting of the International Epidemiological Association in Edinburgh, August 1981.

View

Light RJ (1983)
Evaluation Studies Review Annual Vol 8. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

View

Altman DG (1983)
Evaluating a series of clinical trials of the same treatment. Unpublished 40-page development of the author’s 7-page summary (Altman 1981) of his presentation at a meeting of the International Epidemiological Association in Edinburgh, August 1981.

View

Light RJ, Pillemer DB (1984)
Summing up. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

View

Simes RJ (1986)
Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 4:1529-41.

View

Davidson RA (1986)
Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1:156-158.

View

Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H (1987)
Publication bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 8:343-53.

View

Gøtzsche PC (1987)
Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 295:654-656.

View

Vandenbroucke JP (1988)
Passive smoking and lung cancer: a publication bias? BMJ 296:391-392.

View

Begg CB, Berlin JA (1988)
Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 151:419-463.

View

Dickersin K (1988)
Report from the panel on the case for registers of clinical trials at the eighth annual meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials. Control Clinical Trials 9:76-81.

View

Gøtzsche PC (1989)
Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clinical Trials 10:31-56.

View

Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert CL (1989)
Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics 84(2):374-80.

View

Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR (1991)
Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 37:867-72.

View

Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL (1992)
Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267:374-8.

View

Cowley AJ, Skene A, Stainer, Hampton JR (1993)
The effect of lorcainide on arrhythmias and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction. International Journal of Cardiology 40:161-166.

View

Smith R, Roberts I (1997)
An amnesty for unpublished trials. BMJ 315:622.

View

Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH (2000)
The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 356:635-638.

View

Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL (2002)
Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8:353-359.

View

Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I (2002)
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA 287: 2799-801.

View

Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003)
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167-70.

View

Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B (2003)
Evidence b(i)ased medicine - selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 326:1171-3.

View

Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L (2003)
Good Publication Practice for pharmaceutical companies. Current Medical Research and Opinion 19:149-54.

View

Chan A-W, Hròbjartsson A, Haahr M, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004)
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to publications. JAMA 291:2457-2465.

View

Chan AW, Krleža-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman D (2004)
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2004;171:735-40.

View

Carlsson HE, Schapiro SJ, Farah I, Hau J (2004)
Use of primates in research: a global overview. American Journal of Primatology 63:225-37.

View

Bailey J (2005)
Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: a critical review. Biogenic Amines 19:235–255.

View

O'Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW (2006)
1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Annals of Neurology 59:467-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20741

View

Weatherall D (2006)
The use of non-human primates in research. A working group report. https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/the-use-of-non-human-primates-in-research/

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2007)
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 187-90.

View

Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L (2008)
Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 5(11): e217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217

View

Scott S, Kranz JE, Cole J, Lincecum JM, Thompson K, Kelly N, Bostrom A, Theodoss J, Al-Nakhala BM, Vieira FG, Ramasubbu J, Heywood JA (2008)
Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis 9:4-15. DOI: 10.1080/17482960701856300.

View

Greenberg SA (2009)
How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ 339:b2680.

View

Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS (2010)
Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review. Archives of Internal Medicine 170:1934-1939.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2010)
Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376: 20-1.

View

Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PMW, Howells DW, Macleod MR (2010)
Publication bias in reports of animal Stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 8(3): e1000344. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344

View

Sena ES, Briscoe CL, Howells DW, Donnan GA, Sandercock PA, Macleod MR (2010)
Factors affecting the apparent efficacy and safety of tissue plasminogen activator in thrombotic occlusion models of stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 30:1905-13.

View

De Vries RB, Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M (2011)
A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in Embase. Laboratory Animals 45:268-70.

View

Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011)
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:712.

View

Turner EH, Knoepflmacher D, Shapley L (2012)
Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration database. PLoS Med 9(3):e1001189.

View

Goldacre B (2012)
Bad Pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. London: Fourth Estate.

View

Martic-Kehl MI,Schibli R, Schubiger PA (2012)
Can animal data predict human outcome? Problems and pitfalls of translational animal research. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 39:1492–1496. 10.1007/s00259-012-2175-z

View

Ioannidis JP (2012)
Extrapolating from animals to humans. Sci Transl Med 4(151):151ps15. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004631. PMID: 22972841.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S (2013)
Many reports of randomised trials still don’t begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. Journal of the Bahrain Medical Society 24: 145-8.

View

Peers IS, South MC, Ceuppens PR, Bright JD, Pilling E (2014)
Can you trust your animal study data? Nature reviews. Drug discovery. 13. 10.1038/nrd4090-c1.

View

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A (2014)
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014;(10):MR000035.

View

Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P (2014)
Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 32:4120-4126.

View

Sena ES, Currie GL, McCann SK, Macleod MR, Howells DW (2014)
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 34:737-742. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2014.28

View

Green SB (2015)
Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research. BMC Medical Ethics 16:53. DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0043-7.

View

Tudur Smith C, Marcucci M, Nolan SJ, Iorio A, Sudell M, Riley R, Rovers MM, Williamson PR (2016)
Individual participant data meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses based on aggregate data. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 9. Art. No.: MR000007.DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000007.pub3.

View

Misemer BS, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW (2016)
Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional analysis. Trials 17:473.

View

Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, Moher D, Hrobjartsson A, Lasserson T, Boutron I (2016)
A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 75:56-65.

View

Chalmers I (2017)
The evolution of fair tests of treatments over two millennia: a 23 minute audio commentary. Edited by Hamish Chalmers, using unbroadcast recordings made by Freakonomics Radio, with permission.

View

Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L (2017)
`Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLoS Biol 15: e2002173.

View

Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E (2018)
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (11): MR000005.

View

de Vries YA, Roest AM, de Jonge P, Cuijpers P, Munafò MR, Bastiaansen JA (2018)
The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: the case of depression. Psychological Medicine 48:2453-2455.

View

Boutron I, Haneef R, Yavchitz A, Baron G, Novack J, Oransky I, Schwitzer G, Ravaud P (2019)
Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit. BMC Medicine 17;105:1330-1339.

View

Bradley SH, DeVito NJ, Lloyd KE, Richards GC, Rombey T, Wayant C, Gill PJ (2020)
Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 113:433-443.

View

Show


Dickersin K, Chalmers I (2010).
Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Donaldson IML (2013).
Francis Bacon’s comments on the power of negative observations in his Novum Organum, first published in 1620. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Dickersin K, Chalmers F (2014).
Thomas C Chalmers (1917-1995): a pioneer of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Hampton J (2015).
Therapeutic fashion and publication bias: the case of anti-arrhythmic drugs in heart attack. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Wager E (2015).
Good Publication Practice 3: reflections on becoming a guideline grandmother. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Dean ME (2015).
Selective suppression by the medical establishment of unwelcome research findings: The cholera treatment evaluation by the General Board of Health, London 1854. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Bishop D, Gill E (2019).
Robert Boyle on the importance of reporting and replicating experiments. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Jefferson T (2019).
Sponsorship bias in clinical trials – growing menace or dawning realisation? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Brinkmann R, Podolsky SH (2021).
The ‘Personal Equation’ as observer bias, and proposed methods to contain it in Anglo-American medicine. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Clarke M (2021).
The true meaning of DICE: Don’t Ignore Chance Effects JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Gøtzsche PC (2021).
Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Held L, Matthews RAJ (2022).
Paradigm lost: Carl Liebermeister and the development of modern medical statistics. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Pound P (2022).
The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000 – 2022. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Chalmers I, Matthews R, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Armitage P† (2023).
Analysis of clinical trial by Treatment Allocated or by Treatment Received? Applying ‘the intention-to-treat principle’. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Nothing found, please try resetting your search filters