Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;59(8):829-830. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12952.
It is well-known that selective outcome reporting and publication distort the information that is made publicly available, and so undermine the reliability of what we consider evidence-based knowledge. Perhaps less known is that the risk of bias extends beyond the process of reporting and publishing results. Two further sources of bias are spin and selective citing. Spin relates to selective interpretation, meant to transform a basically negative conclusion into a more positively toned one; citation bias is the phenomenon that positive findings tend to be cited more than negative ones. The effects of these sources of imbalance accumulate, and the consequences can be huge. This issue of JCPP contains several articles with wholly or partly negative findings, which hopefully will be cited frequently. Publications regarding negative findings comprise an underrepresented and often undervalued minority, and therefore deserve all the support they can get.
众所周知,选择性结果报告和发表会扭曲公开信息,从而破坏我们所认为的基于证据的知识的可靠性。也许不太为人知的是,偏倚风险不仅限于报告和发表结果的过程。还有另外两个来源的偏倚,即选择性解读和选择性引用。选择性解读涉及有选择性的解释,旨在将基本的负面结论转化为更积极的结论;引用偏倚是指阳性发现比阴性发现更倾向于被引用的现象。这些不平衡的来源的影响会累积,后果可能是巨大的。本期 JCPP 包含几篇全部或部分为阴性结果的文章,希望这些文章能被频繁引用。关于阴性结果的出版物构成了代表性不足且往往被低估的少数派,因此值得得到所有可能的支持。