Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Association between reported exposure to road traffic and respiratory symptoms in children: evidence of bias

BACKGROUND: Many studies showing effects of traffic-related air pollution on health rely on self-reported exposure, which may be inaccurate. We estimated the association between self-reported exposure to road traffic and respiratory symptoms in preschool children, and investigated whether the effect could have been caused by reporting bias. METHODS: In a random sample of 8700 preschool children in Leicestershire, UK, exposure to road traffic and respiratory symptoms were assessed by a postal questionnaire (response rate 80%). The association between traffic exposure and respiratory outcomes was assessed using unconditional logistic regression and conditional regression models (matching by postcode). RESULTS: Prevalence odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for self-reported road traffic exposure, comparing the categories 'moderate' and 'dense', respectively, with 'little or no' were for current wheezing: 1.26 (1.13-1.42) and 1.30 (1.09-1.55); chronic rhinitis: 1.18 (1.05-1.31) and 1.31 (1.11-1.56); night cough: 1.17 (1.04-1.32) and 1.36 (1.14-1.62); and bronchodilator use: 1.20 (1.04-1.38) and 1.18 (0.95-1.46). Matched analysis only comparing symptomatic and asymptomatic children living at the same postcode (thus exposed to similar road traffic) showed similar ORs, suggesting that parents of children with respiratory symptoms reported more road traffic than parents of asymptomatic children. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that reporting bias could explain some or even all the association between reported exposure to road traffic and disease. Over-reporting of exposure by only 10% of parents of symptomatic children would be sufficient to produce the effect sizes shown in this study. Future research should be based only on objective measurements of traffic exposure.

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

Evaluation of Swiss slaughterhouse data for integration in a syndromic surveillance system

BACKGROUND: We evaluated Swiss slaughterhouse data for integration in a national syndromic surveillance system for the early detection of emerging diseases in production animals. We analysed meat inspection data for cattle, pigs and small ruminants slaughtered between 2007 and 2012 (including emergency slaughters of sick/injured animals); investigating patterns in the number of animals slaughtered and condemned; the reasons invoked for whole carcass condemnations; reporting biases and regional effects. RESULTS: Whole carcass condemnation rates were fairly uniform (1-2‰) over time and between the different types of production animals. Condemnation rates were much higher and less uniform following emergency slaughters. The number of condemnations peaked in December for both cattle and pigs, a time when individuals of lower quality are sent to slaughter when hay and food are limited and when certain diseases are more prevalent. Each type of production animal was associated with a different profile of condemnation reasons. The most commonly reported one was "severe lesions" for cattle, "abscesses" for pigs and "pronounced weight loss" for small ruminants. These reasons could constitute valuable syndromic indicators as they are unspecific clinical manifestations of a large range of animal diseases (as well as potential indicators of animal welfare). Differences were detected in the rate of carcass condemnation between cantons and between large and small slaughterhouses. A large percentage (>60% for all three animal categories) of slaughterhouses operating never reported a condemnation between 2007 and 2012, a potential indicator of widespread non-reporting bias in our database. CONCLUSIONS: The current system offers simultaneous coverage of cattle, pigs and small ruminants for the whole of Switzerland; and traceability of each condemnation to its farm of origin. The number of condemnations was significantly linked to the number of slaughters, meaning that the former should be always be offset by the later in analyses. Because this denominator is only communicated at the end of the month, condemnations may currently only be monitored on a monthly basis. Coupled with the lack of timeliness (30-60 days delay between condemnation and notification), this limits the use of the data for early-detection.

Socioeconomic Status and Childhood Leukemia Incidence in Switzerland.

Socioeconomic status (SES) discrepancies exist for child and adult cancer morbidity and are a major public health concern. In this Swiss population-based matched case-control study on the etiology of childhood leukemia, we selected the cases from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry diagnosed since 1991 and the controls randomly from census. We assigned eight controls per case from the 1990 and 2000 census and matched them by the year of birth and gender. SES information for both cases and controls was obtained from census records by probabilistic record linkage. We investigated the association of SES with childhood leukemia in Switzerland, and explored whether it varied with different definitions of socioeconomic status (parental education, living condition, area-based SES), time period, and age. In conditional logistic regression analyses of 565 leukemia cases and 4433 controls, we found no consistent evidence for an association between SES and childhood leukemia. The odds ratio comparing the highest with the lowest SES category ranged from 0.95 (95% CI: 0.71-1.26; P trend = 0.73) for paternal education to 1.37 (1.00-1.89; P trend = 0.064) for maternal education. No effect modification was found for time period and age at diagnosis. Based on this population-based study, which avoided participation and reporting bias, we assume the potential association of socioeconomic status and childhood leukemia if existing to be small. This study did not find evidence that socioeconomic status, of Switzerland or comparable countries, is a relevant risk factor or strong confounder in etiological investigations on childhood leukemia.

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Panic disorder is characterised by the presence of recurrent unexpected panic attacks, discrete periods of fear or anxiety that have a rapid onset and include symptoms such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating and shaking. Panic disorder is common in the general population, with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. A previous Cochrane meta-analysis suggested that psychological therapy (either alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) can be chosen as a first-line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. However, it is not yet clear whether certain psychological therapies can be considered superior to others. In order to answer this question, in this review we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), in which we compared eight different forms of psychological therapy and three forms of a control condition. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different psychological therapies and different control conditions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults. SEARCH METHODS We conducted the main searches in the CCDANCTR electronic databases (studies and references registers), all years to 16 March 2015. We conducted complementary searches in PubMed and trials registries. Supplementary searches included reference lists of included studies, citation indexes, personal communication to the authors of all included studies and grey literature searches in OpenSIGLE. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on adults with a formal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. We considered the following psychological therapies: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT (3W) and psychodynamic therapies (PD). We included both individual and group formats. Therapies had to be administered face-to-face. The comparator interventions considered for this review were: no treatment (NT), wait list (WL) and attention/psychological placebo (APP). For this review we considered four short-term (ST) outcomes (ST-remission, ST-response, ST-dropouts, ST-improvement on a continuous scale) and one long-term (LT) outcome (LT-remission/response). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS As a first step, we conducted a systematic search of all relevant papers according to the inclusion criteria. For each outcome, we then constructed a treatment network in order to clarify the extent to which each type of therapy and each comparison had been investigated in the available literature. Then, for each available comparison, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. Subsequently, we performed a network meta-analysis in order to synthesise the available direct evidence with indirect evidence, and to obtain an overall effect size estimate for each possible pair of therapies in the network. Finally, we calculated a probabilistic ranking of the different psychological therapies and control conditions for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 1432 references; after screening, we included 60 studies in the final qualitative analyses. Among these, 54 (including 3021 patients) were also included in the quantitative analyses. With respect to the analyses for the first of our primary outcomes, (short-term remission), the most studied of the included psychological therapies was CBT (32 studies), followed by BT (12 studies), PT (10 studies), CT (three studies), SP (three studies) and PD (two studies).The quality of the evidence for the entire network was found to be low for all outcomes. The quality of the evidence for CBT vs NT, CBT vs SP and CBT vs PD was low to very low, depending on the outcome. The majority of the included studies were at unclear risk of bias with regard to the randomisation process. We found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and detection bias. We also found selective outcome reporting bias to be present and we strongly suspected publication bias. Finally, we found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of researcher allegiance bias.Overall the networks appeared to be well connected, but were generally underpowered to detect any important disagreement between direct and indirect evidence. The results showed the superiority of psychological therapies over the WL condition, although this finding was amplified by evident small study effects (SSE). The NMAs for ST-remission, ST-response and ST-improvement on a continuous scale showed well-replicated evidence in favour of CBT, as well as some sparse but relevant evidence in favour of PD and SP, over other therapies. In terms of ST-dropouts, PD and 3W showed better tolerability over other psychological therapies in the short term. In the long term, CBT and PD showed the highest level of remission/response, suggesting that the effects of these two treatments may be more stable with respect to other psychological therapies. However, all the mentioned differences among active treatments must be interpreted while taking into account that in most cases the effect sizes were small and/or results were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality, unequivocal evidence to support one psychological therapy over the others for the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults. However, the results show that CBT - the most extensively studied among the included psychological therapies - was often superior to other therapies, although the effect size was small and the level of precision was often insufficient or clinically irrelevant. In the only two studies available that explored PD, this treatment showed promising results, although further research is needed in order to better explore the relative efficacy of PD with respect to CBT. Furthermore, PD appeared to be the best tolerated (in terms of ST-dropouts) among psychological treatments. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence in support of the possible viability of non-specific supportive psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder; however, the results concerning SP should be interpreted cautiously because of the sparsity of evidence regarding this treatment and, as in the case of PD, further research is needed to explore this issue. Behaviour therapy did not appear to be a valid alternative to CBT as a first-line treatment for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.

Multivariable adjustments counteract spectrum and test review bias in accuracy studies

OBJECTIVES: The STAndards for Reporting studies of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) for investigators and editors and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) for reviewers and readers offer guidelines for the quality and reporting of test accuracy studies. These guidelines address and propose some solutions to two major threats to validity: spectrum bias and test review bias. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using a clinical example, we demonstrate that these solutions fail and propose an alternative solution that concomitantly addresses both sources of bias. We also derive formulas that prove the generality of our arguments. RESULTS: A logical extension of our ideas is to extend STARD item 23 by adding a requirement for multivariable statistical adjustment using information collected in QUADAS items 1, 2, and 12 and STARD items 3-5, 11, 15, and 18. CONCLUSION: We recommend reporting not only variation of diagnostic accuracy across subgroups (STARD item 23) but also the effects of the multivariable adjustments on test performance. We also suggest that the QUADAS be supplemented by an item addressing the appropriateness of statistical methods, in particular whether multivariable adjustments have been included in the analysis.

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Reporting and publication bias is a well-known problem in meta-analysis and healthcare research. In 2002 we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on overall survival in cancer patients, which suggested some evidence for improved survival in patients receiving ESAs compared with controls. However, a meta-analysis of individual patient data conducted several years later showed the opposite of our first meta-analysis, that is, evidence for increased on-study mortality and reduced overall survival in cancer patients receiving ESAs. We aimed to determine whether the results of our first meta-analysis could have been affected by publication and reporting biases and, if so, whether timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data could have prevented this. We conducted a hypothetical meta-analysis for overall survival including all studies and study data that could have been available in 2002, at the time when we conducted our first meta-analysis. Compared with our original meta-analysis, which suggested an overall survival benefit for cancer patients receiving ESAs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67‒0.99], our hypothetical meta-analysis based on the results of all studies conducted at the time of the first analysis did not show evidence for a beneficial effect of ESAs on overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83‒1.12). Thus we have to conclude that our first meta-analysis showed misleading overall survival benefits due to publication and reporting biases, which could have been prevented by timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data. Unrestricted access to clinical study protocols including amendments, clinical study reports and individual patient data is needed to ensure timely detection of both beneficial and harmful effects of healthcare interventions.

Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID): an extension of the STROBE statement

Molecular data are now widely used in epidemiological studies to investigate the transmission, distribution, biology, and diversity of pathogens. Our objective was to establish recommendations to support good scientific reporting of molecular epidemiological studies to encourage authors to consider specific threats to valid inference. The statement Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID) builds upon the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative. The STROME-ID statement was developed by a working group of epidemiologists, statisticians, bioinformaticians, virologists, and microbiologists with expertise in control of infection and communicable diseases. The statement focuses on issues relating to the reporting of epidemiological studies of infectious diseases using molecular data that were not addressed by STROBE. STROME-ID addresses terminology, measures of genetic diversity within pathogen populations, laboratory methods, sample collection, use of molecular markers, molecular clocks, timeframe, multiple-strain infections, non-independence of infectious-disease data, missing data, ascertainment bias, consistency between molecular and epidemiological data, and ethical considerations with respect to infectious-disease research. In total, 20 items were added to the 22 item STROBE checklist. When used, the STROME-ID recommendations should advance the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, with clear benefits for evidence reviews and health-policy decision making.

An Assessment of the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trial Reports Published in Prosthodontic and Implant Dentistry Journals

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS The last 30 issues of 9 journals in the field of prosthodontic and implant dentistry (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, and Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry) were hand-searched for RCTs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS From the 3,667 articles screened, a total of 147 RCTs were identified and included. The number of published RCTs increased with time. The overall distribution of a high risk of bias assessment varied across the domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: 8% for random sequence generation, 18% for allocation concealment, 41% for masking, 47% for blinding of outcome assessment, 7% for incomplete outcome data, 12% for selective reporting, and 41% for other biases. CONCLUSION The distribution of high risk of bias for RCTs published in the selected prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals varied among journals and ranged from 8% to 47%, which can be considered as substantial.

'Alternate-goal bias' in antisaccades and the influence of expectation

Saccadic performance depends on the requirements of the current trial, but also may be influenced by other trials in the same experiment. This effect of trial context has been investigated most for saccadic error rate and reaction time but seldom for the positional accuracy of saccadic landing points. We investigated whether the direction of saccades towards one goal is affected by the location of a second goal used in other trials in the same experimental block. In our first experiment, landing points ('endpoints') of antisaccades but not prosaccades were shifted towards the location of the alternate goal. This spatial bias decreased with increasing angular separation between the current and alternative goals. In a second experiment, we explored whether expectancy about the goal location was responsible for the biasing of the saccadic endpoint. For this, we used a condition where the saccadic goal randomly changed from one trial to the next between locations on, above or below the horizontal meridian. We modulated the prior probability of the alternate-goal location by showing cues prior to stimulus onset. The results showed that expectation about the possible positions of the saccadic goal is sufficient to bias saccadic endpoints and can account for at least part of this phenomenon of 'alternate-goal bias'.

Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence of publication bias (acceptance of articles indicating statistically significant results). METHODS: The journals possessing the highest impact factor (2008 data) in each dental specialty were included in the study. The content of the 6 most recent issues of each journal was hand searched and research articles were classified into 4 type categories: cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and interventional (nonrandomized clinical trials and randomized controlled trials). In total, 396 articles were included in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between article-reported statistical significance (dependent variable) and journal impact factor and article study type subject area (independent variables). RESULTS: A statistically significant acceptance rate of positive result was found, ranging from 75% to 90%, whereas the value of impact factor was not related to publication bias among leading dental journals. Compared with other research designs, clinical intervention studies (randomized or nonrandomized) presented the highest percentage of nonsignificant findings (20%); RCTs represented 6% of the examined investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, all other subspecialty journals, except the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, showed significantly decreased odds of publishing an RCT, which ranged from 60% to 93% (P < .05).