Advertisement

Publication of Positive Studies in the Urologic Literature

      Objective

      To assessed rates of positive publications within the urologic literature, comparing the years 2012 and 2017.

      MATERIALS AND METHODS

      All studies published in Journal of Urology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urologic Oncology, Journal of Endourology, and Urology in 2012 and 2017 were reviewed. The primary study outcome was proportion of positive studies. Additional article characteristics, including associated citations and subspecialty focus, were recorded and statistical analyses used to assess for differences in negative publication rates based on these variables.

      RESULTS

      A total of 1,796 articles meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed (2012, 959; 2017, 837). The overall proportion of positive studies decreased in comparison of 2012 and 2017. (90%-86%, P =.01). A statistically significant decrease was seen in 2 of 5 journals: Neurourology and Urodynamics (97%-87%, P = .01) and Journal of Endourology (93%-83%, P <.01). There were no significant differences in associated citations for positive vs negative studies in either year. Logistic regression focused on year and journal revealed that studies published in 2017 and Urology were more likely to be negative.

      CONCLUSION

      The vast majority of studies within the urologic literature are positive, with only a small increase in negative study publication comparing 2012 vs 2017. Continued efforts are needed to identify publication bias and promote dissemination of negative research findings.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Dickersin K
        The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence.
        JAMA. 1990; 263: 1385-1389
        • Dickersin K
        • Min Y
        Publication bias: the problem that won't go away.
        Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993; 31: 135-146
        • Rosenthal R
        The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results.
        Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 638-641
        • Ioannidis J
        Why most published research findings are false.
        PLoS Med. 2005; 2: e124
        • Turner E
        • Matthews A
        • Linardatos E
        • Tell R
        • Rosenthal R
        Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 252-260
        • Fanelli D
        Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries.
        Scientometrics. 2012; 90: 891-904
        • Fanelli D
        “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences.
        PLoS ONE. 2010; 5: e10068
        • Joober R
        • Schmitz N
        • Annable L
        • Boksa P
        Publication bias: what are the challenges and can they be overcome?.
        J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2012; 37: 149-152
        • Song F
        • Parekh-Bhurke S
        • Hooper L
        • Loke Y
        • Ryder J
        • Sutton A
        Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9: 79
        • Malicki M
        • Marusic A
        Is there a solution to publication bias? Researchers call for changes in dissemination of clinical research results.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 1103-1110
        • Toews I
        • Glenton C
        • Lewin S
        • et al.
        Extent, awareness and perception of dissemination bias in qualitative research: an explorative survey.
        PLoS ONE. 2016; 11e0159290
        • Xia L
        • Xu J
        • Guzzo T
        Reporting and methodologic quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.
        Peer J. 2017; 5: e3129
        • Tseng T
        • Stoffs T
        • Dahm P
        Evidence-based urology in practice: publication bias.
        BJU Int. 2010; 106: 318-320
        • Jancke G
        • Aljabery F
        • Gudjonsson S
        • et al.
        Port-site metastases after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: is there a publication bias?.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 641-643
        • Ng L
        • Hersey K
        • Fleshner N
        Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.
        BJU Int. 2004; 94: 79-81
        • Roa A
        • Beatty J
        • Laniado M
        • Matowala H
        • Karim O
        Publication rate of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons annual meeting.
        BJU Int. 2006; 97: 306-309
        • Al-Qaoud T
        • Yafi F
        • Aprikian A
        From podium to press: the 10-year publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Quebec Urological Association (QUA).
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2013; 7: e407-e410
        • Castagnetti M
        • Subramaniam R
        • El-Ghoneimi A
        Abstracts presented at the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) meetings (2003-2010): characteristics and outcome.
        Pediatr Urol. 2014; 10: 355-360
        • Hopewell S
        • Loundon K
        • Clarke M
        • Oxman A
        • Dickersin K
        Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 1MR000006
        • Fanelli D
        Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data..
        PLoS ONE. 2010; 5: e10271
        • Dwan K
        • Gamble C
        • Williamson P
        • Kirkham J
        Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review.
        PLoS ONE. 2013; 8: e66844
        • Song F
        • Parekh S
        • Hooper L
        • et al.
        Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.
        Health Technol Assess. 2010; 14: 1-193
        • Munafo M
        • Stothart G
        • Flint J
        Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor.
        Mol Psychiatry. 2009; 14: 119-120
        • Littmann J
        • Antes G
        • Strech D
        • Meerpohl J
        To overcome failure to publish negative findings: the OPEN project.
        Maturitas. 2013; 76: 111-112
        • De Angelis C
        • Drazen J
        • Frizelle F
        • et al.
        Clinical trials registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors.
        Lancet. 2004; 364: 911-912
        • World Medical Association
        World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.
        JAMA. 2013; 310: 2191-2194
        • Kunath F
        • Grobe H
        • Keck B
        • et al.
        Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials.
        BMJ Open. 2011; 1e000430
        • Moreno S
        • Sutton A
        • Turner E
        • et al.
        Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA registry database and related journal publications.
        BMJ. 2009; 338: b2981