Table 2 Identified barriers and facilitators for possible interventions to counter publication bias
Barriers | Facilitators |
|---|---|
Prospective trial registration | |
• Competing economic or personal interests of different stakeholders | • Trial registration as a prerequisite for crucial decisions within research (e.g. approval from ethics committees, publication by journal editors, condition of funding) |
• Lack of mechanism to enforce trial registration | • One comprehensive trial registry |
• Lack of awareness of the problem | • One unique registration number |
• Imperfect data quality (e.g. incomplete data entries) | • Provision of resources to maintain trial registries |
• Lack of sufficient resources to enable registries to improve data quality | • Raising awareness |
• Many trial registries with different purposes exist | • Educating stakeholders |
• Different legal systems in different countries | • Support of all stakeholders |
Incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports | |
• Lack of prestige for publishing negative findings | • Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice |
• Perceived lack of possibilities to publish | • Right to publication |
• Monitoring of publication status by ethics committees via providing a route to maintain a track record | |
• Retaining a certain percentage of the research grant until results have been published by funders | |
• Law requiring publication of results | |
Public availability of individual patient level data (IPD) | |
• Competing financial or career related interests | • Incentives for making IPD publically available (reputation and credibility, proliferation and efficiency of health care research, development of a new research evaluation system) |
• Safeguarding the privacy of patients | |
• Reporting requirements | • Fostering cooperation and exchange between researchers |
• Missing quality checks | • Law requiring the (restricted) public availability of IPD |
• Complex technological requirements | • Monitoring of complying and mechanisms of enforcement |
Peer-review process and editorial processes | |
• Influenced reviewers and editors | • Enforcing objectivity |
• Cultural norms and behaviours | • Disclose of conflict of interest |
• Inconsistencies in the process | • Use of professional peer reviewers |
• Lack of consistent qualifications | • Training for peer review and editors |
• Peer review only introduction and methods part of a manuscript | |