A retrospective analysis of dissemination biases in the brief alcohol intervention literature.
A retrospective analysis of dissemination biases in the brief alcohol intervention literature.
复制标题
简短酒精干预文献中传播偏差的回顾性分析。
DOI：
10.1037/adb0000014
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Polanin,JoshuaR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tanner-Smith,EmilyE;Polanin,JoshuaR
本研究检查了简短的酒精干预文献中的传播和报道偏差。我们使用了来自179项对照试验的回顾性数据，这些数据包括在一项关于青少年和年轻人短暂酒精干预的荟萃分析中。我们检查了效应量的大小和方向是否与发表类型、鉴定来源、语言、资助、干预和发表之间的时间滞后、报告数量、期刊影响因子和随后的引用有关。结果显示，获得资助的研究的效应值更大（b= 0.14, 95%可信区间[CI][0.04, 0.23]），干预和发表之间的时间滞后更短（b= - 0.03, 95% CI[- 0.05, -）。（b= 0.01, 95% CI[+ 0.00, 0.01]）。被其他作者更频繁引用的研究报告积极效应的几率也更大（优势比= 1.10,95% CI[1.02, 1.18]）。结果表明，时间滞后偏差最近有所增加：近年来，更大的正效应量发表得更快。然而，我们没有发现证据表明影响的大小或方向与地点、来源、语言或期刊影响因子有关。我们的结论是，传播偏差可能确实发生在社会和行为科学文献中，正如医学文献中一贯记录的那样。因此，初级研究人员、期刊审稿人、编辑、系统审稿人和元分析人员必须认识到这些偏见的原因和后果，并致力于参与伦理研究实践，试图将其最小化。
This study examined dissemination and reporting biases in the brief alcohol intervention literature. We used retrospective data from 179 controlled trials included in a meta-analysis on brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults. We examined whether the magnitude and direction of effect sizes were associated with publication type, identification source, language, funding, time lag between intervention and publication, number of reports, journal impact factor, and subsequent citations. Results indicated that effect sizes were larger for studies that had been funded (b= 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI][0.04, 0.23]), had a shorter time lag between intervention and publication (b=− 0.03, 95% CI [− 0.05,−. 001]), and were cited more frequently (b= 0.01, 95% CI [+ 0.00, 0.01]). Studies that were cited more frequently by other authors also had greater odds of reporting positive effects (odds ratio= 1.10, 95% CI [1.02, 1.18]). Results indicated that time lag bias has increased recently: Larger and positive effect sizes were published more quickly in recent years. We found no evidence, however, that the magnitude or direction of effects was associated with location source, language, or journal impact factor. We conclude that dissemination biases may indeed occur in the social and behavioral science literature, as has been consistently documented in the medical literature. As such, primary researchers, journal reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers, and meta-analysts must be cognizant of the causes and consequences of these biases, and commit to engage in ethical research practices that attempt to minimize them.