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 CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished.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

New perspectives in the use of ink evidence in forensic science: Part I. Development of a quality assurance process for forensic ink analysis by HPTLC

The level of information provided by ink evidence to the criminal and civil justice system is limited. The limitations arise from the weakness of the interpretative framework currently used, as proposed in the ASTM 1422-05 and 1789-04 on ink analysis. It is proposed to use the likelihood ratio from the Bayes theorem to interpret ink evidence. Unfortunately, when considering the analytical practices, as defined in the ASTM standards on ink analysis, it appears that current ink analytical practices do not allow for the level of reproducibility and accuracy required by a probabilistic framework. Such framework relies on the evaluation of the statistics of the ink characteristics using an ink reference database and the objective measurement of similarities between ink samples. A complete research programme was designed to (a) develop a standard methodology for analysing ink samples in a more reproducible way, (b) comparing automatically and objectively ink samples and (c) evaluate the proposed methodology in a forensic context. This report focuses on the first of the three stages. A calibration process, based on a standard dye ladder, is proposed to improve the reproducibility of ink analysis by HPTLC, when these inks are analysed at different times and/or by different examiners. The impact of this process on the variability between the repetitive analyses of ink samples in various conditions is studied. The results show significant improvements in the reproducibility of ink analysis compared to traditional calibration methods.

Asking about adherence - from flipping the coin to strong evidence.

In the era of antiretroviral therapy (ART) as prevention for transmission of HIV as well as treatment for HIV-positive individuals irrespective of CD4 cell counts, the importance of adherence has grown. Although adherence is not the only determinant of treatment success, it is one of the only modifiable risk factors. Treatment failure reduces future treatment options and therefore long-term clinical success as well as increases the possibility of developing drug resistant mutations. Drug-resistant strains of HIV can then be transmitted to uninfected or drug-naïve individuals limiting their future treatment options, making adherence an important public-health topic, especially in resource-limited settings. Adherence should be monitored as a part of routine clinical care; however, no gold standard for assessment of adherence exists. For use in daily clinical practice, self-report is the most likely candidate for widespread use due to its many advantages over other measurement methods, such as low cost and ease of administration. Asking individuals about their adherence behaviour has been shown to yield valid and predictive data - well beyond the mere flip of a coin. However, there is still work to be done. This article reviews the literature and evidence on self-reported adherence, identifies gaps in adherence research, and makes recommendations for clinicians on how to best utilise self-reported adherence data to support patients in daily clinical practice.