Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies.

OBJECTIVE To identify the extent to which meta-analyses currently include unpublished data and whether editors, meta-analysts, and methodologists believe unpublished material should be included. DESIGN This article describes two related studies: a literature review and a cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE SELECTION: For the literature review, we identified all articles indexed by the key word meta-analysis from January 1989 to February 1991 and determined whether unpublished material had been searched for, obtained, and included in the meta-analyses. For the cross-sectional survey, we surveyed authors of these meta-analyses, authors of articles addressing methodological issues in meta-analysis published during the same period, and editors of journals in which both types of articles were published. INTERVENTION We asked the respondents about their attitudes concerning inclusion of unpublished data and publication of articles from which data had previously been included in a scientific overview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Inclusion of unpublished data and opinions about whether unpublished material should be included in overviews and whether prior inclusion of data in an overview should bear on publication. RESULTS Of 150 meta-analyses, 46 (30.7%) included unpublished data in their primary analysis. Of authors surveyed, 85% responded. Of the meta-analysts and methodologists, 77.7% felt that unpublished material should definitely or probably be included in scientific overviews; this was true of 46.9% of the editors. A total of 86.4% of the meta-analysts and methodologists and 53.2% of the editors felt that inclusion of data in a prior overview should have no bearing on full publication of original research. CONCLUSION While inclusion of unpublished data in scientific overviews remains controversial, most investigators directly involved in meta-analysis believe that unpublished data should not be systematically excluded. The most valid synthesis of available information will result when meta-analysts subject published and unpublished material to the same rigorous methodological evaluation and present results with and without unpublished sources of data.

[1]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Keeping posted Why register clinical trials?-Revisited , 1992 .

[2]  D. Rennie,et al.  Publication bias. The triumph of hope over experience. , 1992 .

[3]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. , 1992, JAMA.

[4]  P. Easterbrook Directory of registries of clinical trials. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  D. Cook,et al.  Nosocomial pneumonia and the role of gastric pH. A meta-analysis. , 1991, Chest.

[6]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Publication bias in clinical research , 1991, The Lancet.

[7]  K. Dickersin The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. , 1990, JAMA.

[8]  BIAS AGAINST THE NULL HYPOTHESIS: THE REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS OF COCAINE , 1989, The Lancet.

[9]  I. Chalmers,et al.  Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. , 1989, Pediatrics.

[10]  Thomas A. Louis,et al.  An Assessment of Publication Bias Using a Sample of Published Clinical Trials , 1989 .

[11]  C. Begg,et al.  Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. , 1989, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  W. Shadish,et al.  How many studies are in the file drawer? An estimate from the family/marital psychotherapy literature☆ , 1989 .

[13]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Guidelines for reading literature reviews. , 1988, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[14]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Publication bias and clinical trials. , 1987, Controlled clinical trials.

[15]  K A L'Abbé,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical research. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[16]  C. Mulrow The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[17]  T. Chalmers,et al.  Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  R. Simes Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  R. Peto,et al.  Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. , 1985, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[20]  S. Ceci,et al.  Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again , 1982, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  Samuel Ball,et al.  Interjudgmental reliability of reviews for the Journal of Educational Psychology.. , 1981 .

[22]  Domenic V. Cicchetti,et al.  A Statistical Analysis of Reviewer Agreement and Bias in Evaluating Medical Abstracts 1 , 1976, The Yale journal of biology and medicine.

[23]  W. A. Scott,et al.  Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. , 1974 .

[24]  F. Ingelfinger Peer review in biomedical publication. , 1974, The American journal of medicine.

[25]  T. Chalmers,et al.  A Note on Fatality in Serum Hepatitis , 1965 .