Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature
Ronald N. Kostoff; Ronald N. Kostoff (E-mail:ronald.kostoff@pubpolicy.gatech.edu)
2016-11-03
发表期刊Journal of Data and Information Science
卷号1期号:4页码:10-32
摘要
Purpose: To address the under-reporting of research results, with emphasis on the underreporting/distorted reporting of adverse events in the biomedical research literature.
Design/methodology/approach: A four-step approach is used:(1) To identify the characteristics of literature that make it adequate to support policy; (2) to show how each of these characteristics becomes degraded to make inadequate literature; (3) to identify incentives to prevent inadequate literature; and (4) to show policy implications of inadequate literature.
Findings: This review has provided reasons for, and examples of, adverse health effects of myriad substances (1) being under-reported in the premiere biomedical literature, or (2) entering this literature in distorted form. Since there is no way to gauge the extent of this under/distorted-reporting, the quality and credibility of the‘premiere’biomedical literature is unknown. Therefore, any types of meta-analyses or scientometric analyses of this literature will have unknown quality and credibility. The most sophisticated scientometric analysis cannot compensate for a highly flawed database.
Research limitations: The main limitation is in identifying examples of under-reporting. There are many incentives for under-reporting and few dis-incentives.
Practical implications: Almost all research publications, addressing causes of disease, treatments for disease, diagnoses for disease, scientometrics of disease and health issues, and other aspects of healthcare, build upon previous healthcare-related research published. Many researchers will not have laboratories or other capabilities to replicate or validate the published research, and depend almost completely on the integrity of this literature. If the literature is distorted, then future research can be misguided, and health policy recommendations can be ineffective or worse.
Originality/value: This review has examined a much wider range of technical and nontechnical causes for under-reporting of adverse events in the biomedical literature than previous studies.
; Purpose: To address the under-reporting of research results, with emphasis on the underreporting/distorted reporting of adverse events in the biomedical research literature.
Design/methodology/approach: A four-step approach is used:(1) To identify the characteristics of literature that make it adequate to support policy; (2) to show how each of these characteristics becomes degraded to make inadequate literature; (3) to identify incentives to prevent inadequate literature; and (4) to show policy implications of inadequate literature.
Findings: This review has provided reasons for, and examples of, adverse health effects of myriad substances (1) being under-reported in the premiere biomedical literature, or (2) entering this literature in distorted form. Since there is no way to gauge the extent of this under/distorted-reporting, the quality and credibility of the‘premiere’biomedical literature is unknown. Therefore, any types of meta-analyses or scientometric analyses of this literature will have unknown quality and credibility. The most sophisticated scientometric analysis cannot compensate for a highly flawed database.
Research limitations: The main limitation is in identifying examples of under-reporting. There are many incentives for under-reporting and few dis-incentives.
Practical implications: Almost all research publications, addressing causes of disease, treatments for disease, diagnoses for disease, scientometrics of disease and health issues, and other aspects of healthcare, build upon previous healthcare-related research published. Many researchers will not have laboratories or other capabilities to replicate or validate the published research, and depend almost completely on the integrity of this literature. If the literature is distorted, then future research can be misguided, and health policy recommendations can be ineffective or worse.
Originality/value: This review has examined a much wider range of technical and nontechnical causes for under-reporting of adverse events in the biomedical literature than previous studies.
文章类型Expert Reviews
关键词Under-reporting Publication Bias Reporting Bias Manufactured Research Research Misconduct Research Malfeasance Biomedical Literature
学科领域新闻学与传播学 ; 图书馆、情报与文献学
DOI10.20309/jdis.201623
URL查看原文
收录类别其他
语种英语
引用统计
文献类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://ir.las.ac.cn/handle/12502/8905
专题Journal of Data and Information Science_Journal of Data and Information Science-2016
通讯作者Ronald N. Kostoff (E-mail:ronald.kostoff@pubpolicy.gatech.edu)
作者单位School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Gainesville, VA 20155, USA
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Ronald N. Kostoff,Ronald N. Kostoff . Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science,2016,1(4):10-32.
APA Ronald N. Kostoff,&Ronald N. Kostoff .(2016).Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature.Journal of Data and Information Science,1(4),10-32.
MLA Ronald N. Kostoff,et al."Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature".Journal of Data and Information Science 1.4(2016):10-32.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 文献类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
20160402.pdf(2176KB)期刊论文作者接受稿开放获取CC BY-NC-SA请求全文
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
查看访问统计
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Ronald N. Kostoff]的文章
[Ronald N. Kostoff (E-mail:ronald.kostoff@pubpolicy.gatech.edu)]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Ronald N. Kostoff]的文章
[Ronald N. Kostoff (E-mail:ronald.kostoff@pubpolicy.gatech.edu)]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Ronald N. Kostoff]的文章
[Ronald N. Kostoff (E-mail:ronald.kostoff@pubpolicy.gatech.edu)]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。