Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias

Amit Sood, Kayla Knudsen, Richa Sood, Dietlind L. Wahner-Roedler, Sunni A. Barnes, Aditya Bardia, Brent A Bauer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the presence of publication bias and its relation to geographical bias in clinical trials involving complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) published in the highest impact factor general medicine journals. Study Design and Setting: All CAM clinical trials published in the four highest impact factor general medicine journals, Lancet and British Medical Journal (European), and New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association (U.S.), between 1965 and 2004 were abstracted using Medline. Three reviewers abstracted data from the individual studies. In a multivariate analysis, factors predictive of a positive study were assessed. Results: A total of 259 studies met the inclusion criteria. CAM trials published in the European journals were significantly more likely to be positive compared to those published in the U.S. journals (76% vs. 50%, odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, P < 0.0001). Studies originating outside of the United States were significantly more likely to be positive compared to the U.S. studies (75% vs. 49%, P < 0.0001). Adjusting for location and other variables in a multivariate model, the OR for European vs. U.S. journals to publish a positive CAM trial was 1.95 (P = 0.11). Conclusion: Publication bias related to CAM trials among the highest impact factor general medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1123-1126
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume60
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2007

Fingerprint

Journal Impact Factor
Publication Bias
Complementary Therapies
Medicine
Odds Ratio
Clinical Trials
New England
American Medical Association
Multivariate Analysis

Keywords

  • Alternative medicine
  • Clinical trials
  • Complementary therapies
  • Geographic factors
  • Publication bias
  • Treatment outcome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Epidemiology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias. / Sood, Amit; Knudsen, Kayla; Sood, Richa; Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L.; Barnes, Sunni A.; Bardia, Aditya; Bauer, Brent A.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 60, No. 11, 11.2007, p. 1123-1126.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sood, Amit ; Knudsen, Kayla ; Sood, Richa ; Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L. ; Barnes, Sunni A. ; Bardia, Aditya ; Bauer, Brent A. / Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007 ; Vol. 60, No. 11. pp. 1123-1126.
@article{961c6e86c17543e78f7dd6cc901a674b,
title = "Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the presence of publication bias and its relation to geographical bias in clinical trials involving complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) published in the highest impact factor general medicine journals. Study Design and Setting: All CAM clinical trials published in the four highest impact factor general medicine journals, Lancet and British Medical Journal (European), and New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association (U.S.), between 1965 and 2004 were abstracted using Medline. Three reviewers abstracted data from the individual studies. In a multivariate analysis, factors predictive of a positive study were assessed. Results: A total of 259 studies met the inclusion criteria. CAM trials published in the European journals were significantly more likely to be positive compared to those published in the U.S. journals (76{\%} vs. 50{\%}, odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, P < 0.0001). Studies originating outside of the United States were significantly more likely to be positive compared to the U.S. studies (75{\%} vs. 49{\%}, P < 0.0001). Adjusting for location and other variables in a multivariate model, the OR for European vs. U.S. journals to publish a positive CAM trial was 1.95 (P = 0.11). Conclusion: Publication bias related to CAM trials among the highest impact factor general medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias.",
keywords = "Alternative medicine, Clinical trials, Complementary therapies, Geographic factors, Publication bias, Treatment outcome",
author = "Amit Sood and Kayla Knudsen and Richa Sood and Wahner-Roedler, {Dietlind L.} and Barnes, {Sunni A.} and Aditya Bardia and Bauer, {Brent A}",
year = "2007",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "1123--1126",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias

AU - Sood, Amit

AU - Knudsen, Kayla

AU - Sood, Richa

AU - Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L.

AU - Barnes, Sunni A.

AU - Bardia, Aditya

AU - Bauer, Brent A

PY - 2007/11

Y1 - 2007/11

N2 - Objective: To assess the presence of publication bias and its relation to geographical bias in clinical trials involving complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) published in the highest impact factor general medicine journals. Study Design and Setting: All CAM clinical trials published in the four highest impact factor general medicine journals, Lancet and British Medical Journal (European), and New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association (U.S.), between 1965 and 2004 were abstracted using Medline. Three reviewers abstracted data from the individual studies. In a multivariate analysis, factors predictive of a positive study were assessed. Results: A total of 259 studies met the inclusion criteria. CAM trials published in the European journals were significantly more likely to be positive compared to those published in the U.S. journals (76% vs. 50%, odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, P < 0.0001). Studies originating outside of the United States were significantly more likely to be positive compared to the U.S. studies (75% vs. 49%, P < 0.0001). Adjusting for location and other variables in a multivariate model, the OR for European vs. U.S. journals to publish a positive CAM trial was 1.95 (P = 0.11). Conclusion: Publication bias related to CAM trials among the highest impact factor general medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias.

AB - Objective: To assess the presence of publication bias and its relation to geographical bias in clinical trials involving complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) published in the highest impact factor general medicine journals. Study Design and Setting: All CAM clinical trials published in the four highest impact factor general medicine journals, Lancet and British Medical Journal (European), and New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association (U.S.), between 1965 and 2004 were abstracted using Medline. Three reviewers abstracted data from the individual studies. In a multivariate analysis, factors predictive of a positive study were assessed. Results: A total of 259 studies met the inclusion criteria. CAM trials published in the European journals were significantly more likely to be positive compared to those published in the U.S. journals (76% vs. 50%, odds ratio [OR] = 3.15, P < 0.0001). Studies originating outside of the United States were significantly more likely to be positive compared to the U.S. studies (75% vs. 49%, P < 0.0001). Adjusting for location and other variables in a multivariate model, the OR for European vs. U.S. journals to publish a positive CAM trial was 1.95 (P = 0.11). Conclusion: Publication bias related to CAM trials among the highest impact factor general medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias.

KW - Alternative medicine

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Complementary therapies

KW - Geographic factors

KW - Publication bias

KW - Treatment outcome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35148853131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35148853131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.01.009

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 1123

EP - 1126

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 11

ER -