Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy
Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344
复制
发表时间：
2010-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Macleod, Malcolm R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sena, Emily S.;van der Worp, H. Bart;Macleod, Malcolm R.
科学知识的巩固是通过对研究报告中提出的数据进行解释和提炼来进行的，首先是评论文章，然后是教科书和本科生课程，直到真理被“专家”和公众理解所接受。如果数据被收集但尚未发表，它们就无法对知识的提炼做出贡献。如果这些未发表的数据与已发表的作品有很大差异，结论可能无法充分反映所描述的潜在生物效应。实验室科学中这种“发表偏见”的存在及其影响没有被描述。使用 CAMARADES（实验研究中动物数据荟萃分析和审查的协作方法）数据库，我们对急性缺血性中风动物研究中测试的干预措施进行了 16 项系统审查，涉及 525 篇独特的出版物。只有 10 篇出版物 (2%) 报告对梗塞体积没有显着影响，只有 6 篇出版物 (1.2%) 没有报告至少一项显着发现。 Egger 回归和修剪填充分析表明，在模拟中风的动物研究中，发表偏倚非常普遍（文献中分别存在 16 种和 10 种干预措施）。修剪和填充分析表明，发表偏倚可能占系统评价中报告的疗效的约三分之一，在调整发表偏倚后，报告的疗效从 31.3% 降至 23.8%。我们估计还进行了 214 项实验（除了通过严格系统审查确定的 1,359 项实验；未发表率为 14%），但尚未报告。发表偏倚可能对其他动物疾病模型以及更广泛的生命科学产生重要影响。
The consolidation of scientific knowledge proceeds through the interpretation and then distillation of data presented in research reports, first in review articles and then in textbooks and undergraduate courses, until truths become accepted as such both amongst "experts'' and in the public understanding. Where data are collected but remain unpublished, they cannot contribute to this distillation of knowledge. If these unpublished data differ substantially from published work, conclusions may not reflect adequately the underlying biological effects being described. The existence and any impact of such "publication bias'' in the laboratory sciences have not been described. Using the CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies) database we identified 16 systematic reviews of interventions tested in animal studies of acute ischaemic stroke involving 525 unique publications. Only ten publications (2%) reported no significant effects on infarct volume and only six (1.2%) did not report at least one significant finding. Egger regression and trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias was highly prevalent (present in the literature for 16 and ten interventions, respectively) in animal studies modelling stroke. Trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias might account for around one-third of the efficacy reported in systematic reviews, with reported efficacy falling from 31.3% to 23.8% after adjustment for publication bias. We estimate that a further 214 experiments (in addition to the 1,359 identified through rigorous systematic review; non publication rate 14%) have been conducted but not reported. It is probable that publication bias has an important impact in other animal disease models, and more broadly in the life sciences.