Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Publication bias due to the failure to publish study results based on the direction or strength of study findings, can lead to a misleading interpretation about the effectiveness of an intervention and ultimately impact patient care. Publication bias has been detected in many clinical areas including subfertility.Objectives:
Is the statistical significance of the results from subfertility randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have been presented at conferences associated with the probability of publication of these RCTs as full-text articles? A preliminary report.Methods:
Eligible abstracts were subfertility RCTs reporting one or more reproductive outcomes. The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialised register (MDSGSR) was searched for abstracts presented between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2010 and a search was performed to identify full-text publications. Two authors independently screened abstracts for eligibility and extracted data. One author searched for all full-text publications not found by the other author.Results:
As of March 2015, 234 eligible articles had been identified from a total of 337 retrieved. Preliminary analysis indicates that: 36% of abstracts were oral presentations, 4% were stated as registered, 9% were stated as interim or preliminary analyses, 13% acknowledged industry funding, while the source of funding was not reported in 67% of studies.Overall, 53% of the abstracts were found to be published as full-text articles. There was no statistically significant (SS) difference between likelihood of publication of abstracts reporting SS results compared to abstracts reporting non-SS results (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.81). Of studies not reporting SS results, 13% made a positive statement about the findings, for example describing a trend towards improved outcomes.