Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

Heb 5.7, Jesus' Prayer on the Mount of Olives and Jewish Christianity: Hearing Early Christian Voices in Canonical and Apocryphal Texts

(Résumé de l'ouvrage) The book of Hebrews has often been the Cinderella of the New Testament, overlooked and marginalized; and yet it is one of the most interesting and theologically significant books in the New Testament. A Cloud of Witness examines the theology of the book in the light of its ancient historical context. There are chapters devoted to the structure of Hebrews, the person of Jesus Christ, Hebrews within the context of Second Temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman empire and the role of Hebrews in early Christian thought.

On the Source and Rewriting of 1 Corinthians 2.9 in Christian, Jewish and Islamic Traditions (1 Clem 34.8; GosJud 47.10-13; a ḥadīth qudsī)

The article reopens the file of sources, parallels and rewritings of 1 Cor 2.9, a saying that Paul attributes to some written source, when others sources put it into Jesus' mouth (e.g. GosThom 17). A state of research highlights that the hypothesis of an oral source is generally preferred but an accurate study of 1 Clem 34.8, a parallel too often neglected, supports the presence of a written source that existed before 1 Cor 2.9. GosJud 47.10-13 will help to understand the attribution of the saying to Jesus. The last important part of this article studies its parallel in Islamic traditions, a ḥadīth qudsī.