Studies with Statistically Significant Effect Estimates Are More Frequently Published Compared to Non-significant Estimates in Oral Health Journals

Overview

Journal BMC Med Res Methodol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Health Services

Date 2023 Jan 9

PMID 36624365

Authors

Jadbinder Seehra

Hadil Khraishi

Nikolaos Pandis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Supporting study registration to reduce research waste.

Purgar M, Glasziou P, Klanjscek T, Nakagawa S, Culina A Nat Ecol Evol. 2024; 8(8):1391-1399.

PMID: 38839851 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-024-02433-5.

References

Song F, Parekh-Bhurke S, Hooper L, Loke Y, Ryder J, Sutton A . Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9:79. PMC: 2789098. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-79. View

Tatsioni A, Bonitsis N, Ioannidis J . Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA. 2007; 298(21):2517-26. DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.21.2517. View

Yuan J, Shyamsunder N, Barao V, Lee D, Sukotjo C . Publication bias in five dental implant journals: an observation from 2005 to 2009. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(5):1024-32. View

Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

Ioannidis J . An epidemic of false claims. Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings. Sci Am. 2011; 304(6):16. View

Head M, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn A, Jennions M . The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol. 2015; 13(3):e1002106. PMC: 4359000. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106. View

Knight J . Negative results: Null and void. Nature. 2003; 422(6932):554-5. DOI: 10.1038/422554a. View

Papageorgiou S, Kloukos D, Petridis H, Pandis N . Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics & implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties. J Dent. 2015; 43(10):1195-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.08.005. View

Viergever R, Ghersi D . The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLoS One. 2011; 6(2):e14701. PMC: 3044717. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014701. View

10.

Olson C, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan J . Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA. 2002; 287(21):2825-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2825. View

11.

Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke Y, Ryder J, Sutton A . Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010; 14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193. DOI: 10.3310/hta14080. View

12.

Polychronopoulou A, Pandis N, Eliades T . Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2010; 10(4):207-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2010.09.014. View

13.

Panagiotou O, Contopoulos-Ioannidis D, Ioannidis J . Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment. BMJ. 2013; 346:f707. PMC: 3570069. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f707. View

14.

Ioannidis J . Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005; 294(2):218-28. DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.2.218. View

15.

Zarin D, Keselman A . Registering a clinical trial in ClinicalTrials.gov. Chest. 2007; 131(3):909-912. DOI: 10.1378/chest.06-2450. View

16.

Guo F, Fang X, Li C, Qin D, Hua F, He H . The presence and characteristics of 'spin' among randomized controlled trial abstracts in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod. 2021; 43(5):576-582. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjab044. View

17.

Dickersin K, Min Y, Meinert C . Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992; 267(3):374-8. View

18.

Ioannidis J, Haidich A, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori S, Tektonidou M . Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001; 286(7):821-30. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.7.821. View

19.

Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz K, Altman D . Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010; 8:24. PMC: 2874506. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24. View

20.

Eleftheriadi I, Ioannou T, Pandis N . Extent and prevalence of spin in randomized controlled trials in dentistry. J Dent. 2020; 100:103433. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103433. View