Analysis of indications for selectively missing results in comparative registry-based studies in medicine: a meta-research study.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Paula Starke, Zhentian Zhang, Hannah Papmeier, Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes
{"title":"Analysis of indications for selectively missing results in comparative registry-based studies in medicine: a meta-research study.","authors":"Paula Starke, Zhentian Zhang, Hannah Papmeier, Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00159-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We assess if there are indications that results of registry-based studies comparing the effectiveness of interventions might be selectively missing depending on the statistical significance (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligibility criteria Sample of cohort type studies that used data from a patient registry, compared two study arms for assessing a medical intervention, and reported an effect for a binary outcome. Information sources We searched PubMed to identify registries in seven different medical specialties in 2022/23. Subsequently, we included all studies that satisfied the eligibility criteria for each of the identified registries and collected p-values from these studies. Synthesis of results We plotted the cumulative distribution of p-values and a histogram of absolute z-scores for visual inspection of selectively missing results because of p-hacking, selective reporting, or publication bias. In addition, we tested for publication bias by applying a caliper test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Included studies Sample of 150 registry-based cohort type studies. Synthesis of results The cumulative distribution of p-values displays an abrupt, heavy increase just below the significance threshold of 0.05 while the distribution above the threshold shows a slow, gradual increase. The p-value of the caliper test with a 10% caliper was 0.011 (k = 2, N = 13).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that the results of registry-based studies might be selectively missing. Results from registry-based studies comparing medical interventions should be interpreted very cautiously, as positive findings could be a result from p-hacking, publication bias, or selective reporting. Prospective registration of such studies is necessary and should be made mandatory both in regulatory contexts and for publication in journals. Further research is needed to determine the main reasons for selectively missing results to support the development and implementation of more specific methods for preventing selectively missing results.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"10 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881244/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00159-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We assess if there are indications that results of registry-based studies comparing the effectiveness of interventions might be selectively missing depending on the statistical significance (p < 0.05).

Methods: Eligibility criteria Sample of cohort type studies that used data from a patient registry, compared two study arms for assessing a medical intervention, and reported an effect for a binary outcome. Information sources We searched PubMed to identify registries in seven different medical specialties in 2022/23. Subsequently, we included all studies that satisfied the eligibility criteria for each of the identified registries and collected p-values from these studies. Synthesis of results We plotted the cumulative distribution of p-values and a histogram of absolute z-scores for visual inspection of selectively missing results because of p-hacking, selective reporting, or publication bias. In addition, we tested for publication bias by applying a caliper test.

Results: Included studies Sample of 150 registry-based cohort type studies. Synthesis of results The cumulative distribution of p-values displays an abrupt, heavy increase just below the significance threshold of 0.05 while the distribution above the threshold shows a slow, gradual increase. The p-value of the caliper test with a 10% caliper was 0.011 (k = 2, N = 13).

Conclusions: We found that the results of registry-based studies might be selectively missing. Results from registry-based studies comparing medical interventions should be interpreted very cautiously, as positive findings could be a result from p-hacking, publication bias, or selective reporting. Prospective registration of such studies is necessary and should be made mandatory both in regulatory contexts and for publication in journals. Further research is needed to determine the main reasons for selectively missing results to support the development and implementation of more specific methods for preventing selectively missing results.

基于比较登记的医学研究中选择性缺失结果的适应症分析:一项荟萃研究。
背景:我们评估是否有迹象表明,比较干预措施有效性的基于登记的研究结果可能会选择性地遗漏,这取决于统计显著性(p)。方法:资格标准:队列类型研究的样本使用来自患者登记的数据,比较两个研究组来评估医疗干预措施,并报告了对二元结果的影响。我们检索PubMed以确定2022/23年7个不同医学专业的注册。随后,我们纳入了所有符合每个已确定注册中心资格标准的研究,并收集了这些研究的p值。结果的综合我们绘制了p值的累积分布和绝对z分数的直方图,用于目视检查由于p黑客、选择性报告或发表偏倚而选择性缺失的结果。此外,我们采用卡钳检验来检验发表偏倚。结果:纳入研究样本为150个基于注册的队列研究。p值的累积分布在显著性阈值0.05以下表现为突然的、大幅度的增加,而高于显著性阈值的分布则表现为缓慢的、渐进的增加。10%卡尺检验的p值为0.011 (k = 2, N = 13)。结论:我们发现基于登记的研究结果可能有选择性地缺失。基于注册表的比较医疗干预的研究结果应非常谨慎地解释,因为阳性结果可能是p-hacking、发表偏倚或选择性报道的结果。这类研究的前瞻性注册是必要的,在监管环境和期刊发表方面都应该是强制性的。需要进一步的研究来确定选择性缺失结果的主要原因,以支持制定和实施更具体的方法来预防选择性缺失结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信