Search

Your search keyword '"Portalupi Susan"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Author "Portalupi Susan"
3 results on '"Portalupi Susan"'

1. Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics

Author

Portalupi Susan, von Elm Erik, Schmucker Christine, Lang Britta, Motschall Edith, Schwarzer Guido, Gross Isabel T, Scherer Roberta W, Bassler Dirk, and Meerpohl Joerg J

Subjects
Publication bias, Selective reporting, Abstract(s), Research ethics committees, Trial registration, The OPEN Project, Medicine
Abstract

Abstract Background Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. Methods As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives: 1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval, b. were registered in trial registries, or c. were presented as abstracts at conferences. 2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication. To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows: a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs; b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries; c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts. Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time). Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication. The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. Discussion Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Published
2013
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

Author

Schmucker, Christine, Schell, Lisa K, Portalupi, Susan, Oeller, Patrick, Cabrera, Laura, Bassler, Dirk, Schwarzer, Guido, Scherer, Roberta W, Antes, Gerd, von Elm, Erik, Meerpohl, Joerg J, Schmucker, Christine, Schell, Lisa K, Portalupi, Susan, Oeller, Patrick, Cabrera, Laura, Bassler, Dirk, Schwarzer, Guido, Scherer, Roberta W, Antes, Gerd, von Elm, Erik, and Meerpohl, Joerg J

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after

Published
2014

3. A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses

Author

Schmucker, Christine, primary, Bluemle, Annette, additional, Briel, Matthias, additional, Portalupi, Susan, additional, Lang, Britta, additional, Motschall, Edith, additional, Schwarzer, Guido, additional, Bassler, Dirk, additional, Mueller, Katharina F, additional, von Elm, Erik, additional, and Meerpohl, Joerg J, additional

Published
2013
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results