Can UK NHS research ethics committees effectively monitor publication and outcome reporting bias?

BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):1-5 (2015)

Abstract
BackgroundPublication and outcome reporting bias is often caused by researchers selectively choosing which scientific results and outcomes to publish. This behaviour is ethically significant as it distorts the literature used for future scientific or clinical decision-making. This study investigates the practicalities of using ethics applications submitted to a UK National Health Service research ethics committee to monitor both types of reporting bias.MethodsAs part of an internal audit we accessed research ethics database records for studies submitting an end of study declaration to the Hampshire A research ethics committee between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2011. A literature search was used to establish the publication status of studies. Primary and secondary outcomes stated in application forms were compared with outcomes reported in publications.ResultsOut of 116 studies the literature search identified 57 publications for 37 studies giving a publication rate of 32 %. Original Research Ethics Committee applications could be obtained for 28 of the published studies. Outcome inconsistencies were found in 16 of the published studies.ConclusionsThis study showed that the problem of publication and outcome reporting bias is still significant in the UK. The method described here demonstrates that UK NHS research ethics committees are in a good position to detect such bias due to their unique access to original research protocols. Data gathered in this way could be used by the Health Research Authority to encourage higher levels of transparency in UK research
Keywords Publication ethics  Reporting bias  Publication bias  Research ethics  Ethics committees
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0042-8
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 45,685
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

[Ebbinghaus—Egger—Rauh].[author unknown] - 1909 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 67:446-446.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Conflict of Interest and Medical Publication.Marcus M. Reidenberg - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):455-457.
The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author.David Shaw - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
Interpretation of Tests of Heterogeneity and Bias in Meta‐Analysis.John P. A. Ioannidis - 2008 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 14 (5):951-957.
European Experiences of Ethics Committees.V. Tschudin - 2001 - Nursing Ethics 8 (2):142-151.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-07-25

Total views
13 ( #646,386 of 2,280,792 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #839,031 of 2,280,792 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature