Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not

摘要: Background: Prior studies implying associations between receipt of commercial funding and positive (significant and/or pro-industry) research outcomes have analyzed only published papers, which is an insufficiently robust approach for assessing publication bias. In this study, we tested the following hypotheses regarding orthopaedic manuscripts submitted review: (1) nonscientific variables, including funding, affect likelihood that a peer-reviewed submission will conclude with report study outcome, (2) other, variables are associated acceptance publication. Methods: All about hip or knee arthroplasty were to The Journal Bone Joint Surgery, American Volume, over seventeen months evaluated determine design, quality, outcome. Analyses carried out identify scientific factors (sample size, level evidence) outcome as well non-scientific (funding source country origin) also performed whether factors, publication. Results: Two hundred nine reviewed. Commercial was not found be (p = 0.668). Studies no more likely than those negative 0.410). higher quality 0.003) included larger sample sizes 0.05). Commercially funded 0.027) United States-based 0.020) published, even though sizes, lower levels evidence 0.24 0.79). Conclusions: review nonfunded studies, These findings contradict most previous analyses (rather submitted) research. origin predict peer beyond what would expected on basis quality. although seemingly superior in fared better peer-review process; may result inflation apparent treatment effects when literature subjected meta-analysis.