Journal Home
Search for

Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 4-10 (January 2010)


View previous. 4 of 17 View next.

Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: An observation on published controlled trials

Poramate Pitak-Arnnop, DDS, MSc12Corresponding Author Informationemail address, Robert Sader, MD, DMD, PhD, FEBOMS3, Alexander D. Rapidis, MD, DDS, PhD, FEBOMS, FACS4, Kittipong Dhanuthai, DDS, MSc5, Ute Bauer, MD, DMD, PhD1, Chistian Herve, MD, PhD2, Alexander Hemprich, MD, DMD, PhD1

Received 30 March 2009; accepted 5 October 2009. published online 09 November 2009.

Summary 

Background

Publication bias (PB) diminishes the full distribution of research, distorts and discredits the scientific record, and thus compromises evidence-based practice. The objective of this study was to analyse published controlled trials with regard to PB in leading oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) journals.

Methods

All controlled trials published in the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2008 were analysed for a primary outcome, country of authors, sample size, gender of the first author, funding source and location of the study.

Results

Of 952 published articles, 53 controlled trials (5.7%) were identified. The OMS journals preferentially published controlled trials with a positive outcome (77.4%) and from high-income countries (73.6%). Single-centred trials (86.8%) with low sample size (n<100; 69.8%) were published more frequently. The majority of the first authors were male (75.5%). Funding source disclosure in most studies (73.6%).

Conclusions

Our results suggest the possible existence of PB in the OMS literature. Hence, it should be borne in mind that the published articles may not be representative of all scientific works, especially when systematic reviews and meta-analyses are conducted or read. In the meantime, journals should establish measures to eliminate PB to uphold scientific integrity. However, this study was an observation based on the published articles. An analysis of all submitted manuscripts would provide more accurate estimates of PB. Ethical considerations on PB are also discussed.

1 Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery (Head: Prof. Alexander Hemprich MD, DMD, PhD), Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

2 Laboratory of Medical Ethics and Legal Medicine (Head: Prof. Christian Herve MD, PhD), Faculty of Medicine, University Paris 5 (René Descartes), Paris, France

3 Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery (Head: Prof. Robert Sader MD, DMD, PhD, FEBOMS), Faculty of Medicine, Medical Centre of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe – University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany

4 Department of Maxillofacial/Head and Neck Surgery (Head: Prof. Alexander D. Rapidis MD, DDS, PhD, FEBOMS, FACS), Greek Anticancer Institute, Saint Savvas Hospital, Athens, Greece

5 Department of Oral Pathology (Head: Assoc. Prof. Somporn Swasdison DDS, PhD), Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Corresponding Author InformationDr. Poramate PITAK-ARNNOP, DDS, MSc, Klinik und Poliklinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Plastische Gesichtschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR Nürnberger Str. 57, 04103 Leipzig Germany. Tel.: +49 341 97 21 100; Fax: +49 341 97 21 109.

* Share equally in the credit and work for this paper.

PII: S1010-5182(09)00169-3

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2009.10.005


View previous. 4 of 17 View next.