Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Dillenburger Str 27, 51105 Cologne, Germany.
Trials. 2010 Apr 13;11:37. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-37.
Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles.We identified reporting bias in 40 indications comprising around 50 different pharmacological, surgical (e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy), diagnostic (e.g. ultrasound), and preventive (e.g. cancer vaccines) interventions. Regarding pharmacological interventions, cases of reporting bias were, for example, identified in the treatment of the following conditions: depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, pain, migraine, cardiovascular disease, gastric ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome, urinary incontinence, atopic dermatitis, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypercholesterolaemia, thyroid disorders, menopausal symptoms, various types of cancer (e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma), various types of infections (e.g. HIV, influenza and Hepatitis B), and acute trauma. Many cases involved the withholding of study data by manufacturers and regulatory agencies or the active attempt by manufacturers to suppress publication. The ascertained effects of reporting bias included the overestimation of efficacy and the underestimation of safety risks of interventions.In conclusion, reporting bias is a widespread phenomenon in the medical literature. Mandatory prospective registration of trials and public access to study data via results databases need to be introduced on a worldwide scale. This will allow for an independent review of research data, help fulfil ethical obligations towards patients, and ensure a basis for fully-informed decision making in the health care system.
报告偏倚是评估医疗干预措施的一个主要问题。文献中已经描述了一些突出的案例,例如抗抑郁药、I 类抗心律失常药和选择性 COX-2 抑制剂的试验报告。本叙述性综述的目的是概述医学文献中的报告偏倚,重点关注发表偏倚和选择性结果报告。我们探讨了这些类型的偏倚是否在上述知名案例之外的领域中得到证实,以了解该问题的普遍性程度。为此,我们筛选了德国质量和效率研究所(German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care)在其卫生技术评估报告和其他研究工作中获得的有关报告偏倚的相关文章,以及这些文章的参考文献列表。我们在 40 个适应证中发现了报告偏倚,这些适应证涉及 50 多种不同的药理学、手术(例如,真空辅助闭合治疗)、诊断(例如,超声)和预防(例如,癌症疫苗)干预措施。关于药理学干预措施,报告偏倚的案例例如在以下疾病的治疗中被发现:抑郁症、双相情感障碍、精神分裂症、焦虑症、注意缺陷多动障碍、阿尔茨海默病、疼痛、偏头痛、心血管疾病、胃溃疡、肠易激综合征、尿失禁、特应性皮炎、2 型糖尿病、高胆固醇血症、甲状腺疾病、更年期症状、各种类型的癌症(例如卵巢癌和黑色素瘤)、各种类型的感染(例如 HIV、流感和乙型肝炎)以及急性创伤。许多案例涉及制造商和监管机构隐瞒研究数据,或者制造商积极试图压制出版物。报告偏倚的确定效果包括干预措施疗效的高估和安全性风险的低估。总之,报告偏倚是医学文献中的一个普遍现象。需要在全球范围内引入临床试验的前瞻性注册和通过结果数据库公开获取研究数据。这将允许对研究数据进行独立审查,有助于履行对患者的道德义务,并确保为医疗保健系统中的全面知情决策提供依据。