Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.

The consolidation of scientific knowledge proceeds through the interpretation and then distillation of data presented in research reports, first in review articles and then in textbooks and undergraduate courses, until truths become accepted as such both amongst "experts" and in the public...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Emily S Sena, H Bart van der Worp, Philip M W Bath, David W Howells, Malcolm R Macleod
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2010
Materias:	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/19af55a6f9af4bcba9e677d9b37bdee5
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:19af55a6f9af4bcba9e677d9b37bdee5
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:19af55a6f9af4bcba9e677d9b37bdee52021-12-02T19:54:28ZPublication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.1544-91731545-788510.1371/journal.pbio.1000344https://doaj.org/article/19af55a6f9af4bcba9e677d9b37bdee52010-03-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20361022/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1544-9173https://doaj.org/toc/1545-7885The consolidation of scientific knowledge proceeds through the interpretation and then distillation of data presented in research reports, first in review articles and then in textbooks and undergraduate courses, until truths become accepted as such both amongst "experts" and in the public understanding. Where data are collected but remain unpublished, they cannot contribute to this distillation of knowledge. If these unpublished data differ substantially from published work, conclusions may not reflect adequately the underlying biological effects being described. The existence and any impact of such "publication bias" in the laboratory sciences have not been described. Using the CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies) database we identified 16 systematic reviews of interventions tested in animal studies of acute ischaemic stroke involving 525 unique publications. Only ten publications (2%) reported no significant effects on infarct volume and only six (1.2%) did not report at least one significant finding. Egger regression and trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias was highly prevalent (present in the literature for 16 and ten interventions, respectively) in animal studies modelling stroke. Trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias might account for around one-third of the efficacy reported in systematic reviews, with reported efficacy falling from 31.3% to 23.8% after adjustment for publication bias. We estimate that a further 214 experiments (in addition to the 1,359 identified through rigorous systematic review; non publication rate 14%) have been conducted but not reported. It is probable that publication bias has an important impact in other animal disease models, and more broadly in the life sciences.Emily S SenaH Bart van der WorpPhilip M W BathDavid W HowellsMalcolm R MacleodPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleBiology (General)QH301-705.5ENPLoS Biology, Vol 8, Iss 3, p e1000344 (2010)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
spellingShingle	Biology (General) QH301-705.5 Emily S Sena H Bart van der Worp Philip M W Bath David W Howells Malcolm R Macleod Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.
description	The consolidation of scientific knowledge proceeds through the interpretation and then distillation of data presented in research reports, first in review articles and then in textbooks and undergraduate courses, until truths become accepted as such both amongst "experts" and in the public understanding. Where data are collected but remain unpublished, they cannot contribute to this distillation of knowledge. If these unpublished data differ substantially from published work, conclusions may not reflect adequately the underlying biological effects being described. The existence and any impact of such "publication bias" in the laboratory sciences have not been described. Using the CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies) database we identified 16 systematic reviews of interventions tested in animal studies of acute ischaemic stroke involving 525 unique publications. Only ten publications (2%) reported no significant effects on infarct volume and only six (1.2%) did not report at least one significant finding. Egger regression and trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias was highly prevalent (present in the literature for 16 and ten interventions, respectively) in animal studies modelling stroke. Trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias might account for around one-third of the efficacy reported in systematic reviews, with reported efficacy falling from 31.3% to 23.8% after adjustment for publication bias. We estimate that a further 214 experiments (in addition to the 1,359 identified through rigorous systematic review; non publication rate 14%) have been conducted but not reported. It is probable that publication bias has an important impact in other animal disease models, and more broadly in the life sciences.
format	article
author	Emily S Sena H Bart van der Worp Philip M W Bath David W Howells Malcolm R Macleod
author_facet	Emily S Sena H Bart van der Worp Philip M W Bath David W Howells Malcolm R Macleod
author_sort	Emily S Sena
title	Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.
title_short	Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.
title_full	Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.
title_fullStr	Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.
title_full_unstemmed	Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.
title_sort	publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2010
url	https://doaj.org/article/19af55a6f9af4bcba9e677d9b37bdee5
work_keys_str_mv	AT emilyssena publicationbiasinreportsofanimalstrokestudiesleadstomajoroverstatementofefficacy AT hbartvanderworp publicationbiasinreportsofanimalstrokestudiesleadstomajoroverstatementofefficacy AT philipmwbath publicationbiasinreportsofanimalstrokestudiesleadstomajoroverstatementofefficacy AT davidwhowells publicationbiasinreportsofanimalstrokestudiesleadstomajoroverstatementofefficacy AT malcolmrmacleod publicationbiasinreportsofanimalstrokestudiesleadstomajoroverstatementofefficacy
_version_	1718375885677002752

Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy.

Ejemplares similares