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 CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished.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.

MRI-based assessment of the pineal gland in a large population of children aged 0-5 years and comparison with pineoblastoma: part I, the solid gland.

INTRODUCTION: Differentiation between normal solid (non-cystic) pineal glands and pineal pathologies on brain MRI is difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the size of the solid pineal gland in children (0-5 years) and compare the findings with published pineoblastoma cases. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the size (width, height, planimetric area) of solid pineal glands in 184 non-retinoblastoma patients (73 female, 111 male) aged 0-5 years on MRI. The effect of age and gender on gland size was evaluated. Linear regression analysis was performed to analyze the relation between size and age. Ninety-nine percent prediction intervals around the mean were added to construct a normal size range per age, with the upper bound of the predictive interval as the parameter of interest as a cutoff for normalcy. RESULTS: There was no significant interaction of gender and age for all the three pineal gland parameters (width, height, and area). Linear regression analysis gave 99 % upper prediction bounds of 7.9, 4.8, and 25.4 mm(2), respectively, for width, height, and area. The slopes (size increase per month) of each parameter were 0.046, 0.023, and 0.202, respectively. Ninety-three percent (95 % CI 66-100 %) of asymptomatic solid pineoblastomas were larger in size than the 99 % upper bound. CONCLUSION: This study establishes norms for solid pineal gland size in non-retinoblastoma children aged 0-5 years. Knowledge of the size of the normal pineal gland is helpful for detection of pineal gland abnormalities, particularly pineoblastoma.