Sena1 ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, et al. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biology 2010;8:e1000344. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344
The existence and impact of publication bias in laboratory sciences was explored using the CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies) database to find systematic reviews of animal studies of acute ischaemic stroke. Only 10 of the 525 publications identified reported no significant effects on infarct volume, and only 6 did not report at least one significant finding. Statistical analysis suggested that publication bias might account for about one-third of the efficacy reported in systematic reviews. It is estimated that over 200 experiments have been conducted in this field but not reported.
The existence and impact of publication bias in laboratory sciences was explored using the CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies) database to find systematic reviews of animal studies of acute ischaemic stroke. Only 10 of the 525 publications identified reported no significant effects on infarct volume, and only 6 did not report at least one significant finding. Statistical analysis suggested that publication bias might account for about one-third of the efficacy reported in systematic reviews. It is estimated that over 200 experiments have been conducted in this field but not reported.
Comments