Machan Christof, Ammenwerth Elske, Bodner Thomas
Institute for Health Information Systems, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tyrol, Austria.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;124:957-62.
The phenomenon of publication bias has probably existed since results of scientific research are being published. Positive and/or statistically significant results seem more likely to be published than negative and/or insignificant results. However, it is unclear if there is a remarkable impact of publication bias in medical informatics evaluation literature and how aware researchers are of its effect. We conducted a small-scale study in order to find out what the ratio of papers describing positive results vs. negative results is, tried to find enough studies to a certain subject to carry out a meta-analysis and assess publication bias by statistical methods, and finally examined reviews and meta-analyses for their results and their quality. A random sample of 86 studies showed a remarkably high percentage of descriptions of positive results (69.8%). 19 (36.6%) of the analyzed 54 reviews and meta-analyses came to a positive conclusion with regard to the overall effect of the analyzed system, 32 (62.5%) were inconclusive, and only one review came to a negative conclusion. Quantitative assessment of publication bias for health informatics studies was found difficult due to the low number of comparable studies. Although there is no clear evidence for a great impact of publication bias in medical informatics evaluation literature, further research should carried out.
自科学研究成果开始发表以来,发表偏倚现象可能就已存在。与阴性和/或无统计学意义的结果相比,阳性和/或有统计学意义的结果似乎更有可能被发表。然而,发表偏倚在医学信息学评估文献中是否有显著影响以及研究人员对其影响的认知程度尚不清楚。我们开展了一项小规模研究,以查明描述阳性结果与阴性结果的论文比例,试图找到关于某个主题的足够多研究以进行荟萃分析,并通过统计方法评估发表偏倚,最后检查综述和荟萃分析的结果及其质量。对86项研究的随机抽样显示,阳性结果描述的比例非常高(69.8%)。在分析的54篇综述和荟萃分析中,19篇(36.6%)就所分析系统的总体效果得出了阳性结论,32篇(62.5%)未得出结论,只有一篇综述得出了阴性结论。由于可比研究数量较少,发现对健康信息学研究的发表偏倚进行定量评估很困难。虽然没有明确证据表明发表偏倚在医学信息学评估文献中有很大影响,但仍应开展进一步研究。