ted harding requested:
can anyone point to any serious
survey of the Medical literature which evaluates articles in terms of the
likelihood that they got published as a consequence of pressures
(political, commercial or prejudicial), and/or in terms of comparison to
studies that did not get published for similar reasons?
If anyone can identify such a thing, I for one would be very interested
to hear of it so please post a reference to the list!
iain chalmers has responded
cheers
dls
............................................................................
Prof David L. Sackett
Director, NHS R&D Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine
Consultant in Medicine Editor, Evidence-Based Medicine
Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford
Level 5, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, England
Phone: +44-(0)1865-221320 Fax: +44-(0)1865 222901
Email: [log in to unmask] WWW: http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk
............................................................................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:11:06 -0000
From: Iain Chalmers <[log in to unmask]>
To: 'Dave Sackett' <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: JAMA --Publisher's BIAS is the issue for EBH! (fwd)
All the evidence on publication/reporting bias is relevant here. For
starters, I recommend:
Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen
Intern Med 1986;1:155-8.
Moher D, Berlin J. Improving the reporting of randomised controlled
trials. In: Maynard A, Chalmers I, eds. Non-random reflections on health
services research: on the 25 anniversary of Archie Cochrane's Effectiveness
and Efficiency. London: BMJ Books, 1997, pp 250-271.
Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? a synthesis of available
data. AIDS Edu Prev1997;9:15 - 21
The Cochrane Review Methodology Database.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|