Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Not published, not indexed: issues in generating and finding hospice and palliative care literature.

INTRODUCTION: Accessing new knowledge as the evidence base for hospice and palliative care grows has specific challenges for the discipline. This study aimed to describe conversion rates of palliative and hospice care conference abstracts to journal articles and to highlight that some palliative care literature may not be retrievable because it is not indexed on bibliographic databases. METHODS: Substudy A tracked the journal publication of conference abstracts selected for inclusion in a gray literature database on www.caresearch.com.au . Abstracts were included in the gray literature database following handsearching of proceedings of over 100 Australian conferences likely to have some hospice or palliative care content that were held between 1980 and 1999. Substudy B looked at indexing from first publication until 2001 of three international hospice and palliative care journals in four widely available bibliographic databases through systematic tracing of all original papers in the journals. RESULTS: Substudy A showed that for the 1338 abstracts identified only 15.9% were published (compared to an average in health of 45%). Published abstracts were found in 78 different journals. Multiauthor abstracts and oral presentations had higher rates of conversion. Substudy B demonstrated lag time between first publication and bibliographic indexing. Even after listing, idiosyncratic noninclusions were identified. DISCUSSION: There are limitations to retrieval of all possible literature through electronic searching of bibliographic databases. Encouraging publication in indexed journals of studies presented at conferences, promoting selection of palliative care journals for database indexing, and searching more than one bibliographic database will improve the accessibility of existing and new knowledge in hospice and palliative care.

Missing data in randomized clinical trials for weight loss: scope of the problem, state of the field, and performance of statistical methods.

BACKGROUND: Dropouts and missing data are nearly-ubiquitous in obesity randomized controlled trails, threatening validity and generalizability of conclusions. Herein, we meta-analytically evaluate the extent of missing data, the frequency with which various analytic methods are employed to accommodate dropouts, and the performance of multiple statistical methods. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases (2000-2006) for articles published in English and manually searched bibliographic references. Articles of pharmaceutical randomized controlled trials with weight loss or weight gain prevention as major endpoints were included. Two authors independently reviewed each publication for inclusion. 121 articles met the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted treatment, sample size, drop-out rates, study duration, and statistical method used to handle missing data from all articles and resolved disagreements by consensus. In the meta-analysis, drop-out rates were substantial with the survival (non-dropout) rates being approximated by an exponential decay curve (e(-lambdat)) where lambda was estimated to be .0088 (95% bootstrap confidence interval: .0076 to .0100) and t represents time in weeks. The estimated drop-out rate at 1 year was 37%. Most studies used last observation carried forward as the primary analytic method to handle missing data. We also obtained 12 raw obesity randomized controlled trial datasets for empirical analyses. Analyses of raw randomized controlled trial data suggested that both mixed models and multiple imputation performed well, but that multiple imputation may be more robust when missing data are extensive. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our analysis offers an equation for predictions of dropout rates useful for future study planning. Our raw data analyses suggests that multiple imputation is better than other methods for handling missing data in obesity randomized controlled trials, followed closely by mixed models. We suggest these methods supplant last observation carried forward as the primary method of analysis.

When the library is located in prime real estate: a case study on the loss of space from the Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives.

The Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives is located in the heart of the Duke Medicine campus, surrounded by Duke Hospital, ambulatory clinics, and numerous research facilities. Its location is considered prime real estate, given its adjacency to patient care, research, and educational activities. In 2005, the Duke University Library Space Planning Committee had recommended creating a learning center in the library that would support a variety of educational activities. However, the health system needed to convert the library's top floor into office space to make way for expansion of the hospital and cancer center. The library had only five months to plan the storage and consolidation of its journal and book collections, while working with the facilities design office and architect on the replacement of key user spaces on the top floor. Library staff worked together to develop plans for storing, weeding, and consolidating the collections and provided input into renovation plans for users spaces on its mezzanine level. The library lost 15,238 square feet (29%) of its net assignable square footage and a total of 16,897 (30%) gross square feet. This included 50% of the total space allotted to collections and over 15% of user spaces. The top-floor space now houses offices for Duke Medicine oncology faculty and staff. By storing a large portion of its collection off-site, the library was able to remove more stacks on the remaining stack level and convert them to user spaces, a long-term goal for the library. Additional space on the mezzanine level had to be converted to replace lost study and conference room spaces. While this project did not match the recommended space plans for the library, it underscored the need for the library to think creatively about the future of its facility and to work toward a more cohesive master plan.