The Southern Medical Journal (SMJ) is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Southern Medical Association. It has a multidisciplinary and inter-professional focus that covers a broad range of topics relevant to physicians and other healthcare specialists.

SMJ // Article

Original Article

Publication Bias in Coronary Artery Disease Clinical Trials: A Bibliometric Review

Authors: Anchal Shukla, BS, Tejasvi Paturu, BA, Shreya Shivan, BS, Trenton Lippert, MD, Vic Velanovich, MD

Abstract

Objective: The objective of our study was to determine the extent of publication bias of clinical trials pertaining to the treatment of coronary artery disease. Specifically, studies are more likely to be published if the results are positive and have a higher citation rate.

Methods: The US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials database was used to identify a total of 242 terminated and completed clinical trials with reported results since 2017. Studies were excluded if they had fewer than two treatment arms, fewer than five participants in any of the treatment arms, or no data analysis to determine significance. A trial was deemed “positive” if there was a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms that agreed with the hypothesis. A “negative” was not statistically significant and/or did not agree with the hypothesis of the trial. Data were collected on intervention, treatment arms, funding type, publication rates, citation rate, impact factor and H index of the journal.

Results: Of the 144 trials analyzed, 86 had positive results and 58 had negative results. There was a statistically significant difference in the length of study and publication rate. The publication rate for positive studies was 92%, whereas for negative studies it was 50% (P<0.001).

Conclusions: Positive outcomes had a higher publication rate compared with the negative results. Identification of this bias is critical in addressing the impact it could have on the practice of evidence-based medicine. If negative results are not being published, then this pushes physicians to rely on positive results more heavily, thereby skewing evidence-based decision making. This in turn impacts decisions that affect the quality of care.
Posted in: Cardiovascular Disease45

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Bauersachs R, Zeymer U, Brière J-B, et al. Burden of coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease: a literature review. Cardiovasc Ther 2019;2019:8295054.
 
2. Steg PG, Ducrocq G. Future of the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease. Circ J 2016;80:1067–1072.
 
3. Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak Smolčić V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2017;27:030201.
 
4. Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen GMH, et al. Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;88:92–101.
 
5. Hasenboehler EA, Choudhry IK, Newman JT, et al. Bias towards publishing positive results in orthopedic and general surgery: a patient safety issue? Patient Saf Surg 2007;1:4.
 
6. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252–260.
 
7. Lippert T, Schmucker E, Shukla A, et al. Publication bias in upper gastrointestinal oncology clinical trials. J Gastrointest Cancer 2024; 55:950–955.
 
8. Paturu T, Shukla A, Shivan SG, et al. Publication bias in clinical trials in cataract therapies: implications for evidence-based decision-making. J Cataract Refract Surg 2024;50:1180–1183.
 
9. Palma S. Assessment of publication bias in meta-analyses of cardiovascular diseases. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2005;59: 864–869.
 
10. Aksnes DW, Langfeldt L, Wouters P. Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: an overview of basic concepts and theories. Sage Open 2019;9:2158244019829575.
 
11. Roddick AJ, Chan FTS, Stefaniak JD, et al. Discontinuation and non-publication of clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine. Int J Cardiol 2017;244:309–315.
 
12. Khan MS, Khan MAA, Irfan S, et al. Reporting and interpretation of subgroup analyses in heart failure randomized controlled trials. ESC Heart Fail 2021;8:26–36.