%0 Journal Article %1 Emerson2010 %A Emerson, Gwendolyn B %A Warme, Winston J %A Wolf, Fredric M %A Heckman, James D %A Brand, Richard A %A Leopold, Seth S %D 2010 %J Archives of internal medicine %K Humans LogisticModels OutcomeAssessment(HealthCare) PeerReview PeriodicalsasTopic PublicationBias Research RCT %N 21 %P 1934-9 %R 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406 %T Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098355 %V 170 %X BACKGROUND: If positive-outcome bias exists, it threatens the integrity of evidence-based medicine. METHODS: We sought to determine whether positive-outcome bias is present during peer review by testing whether peer reviewers would (1) recommend publication of a "positive" version of a fabricated manuscript over an otherwise identical "no-difference" version, (2) identify more purposefully placed errors in the no-difference version, and (3) rate the "Methods" section in the positive version more highly than the identical "Methods" section in the no-difference version. Two versions of a well-designed randomized controlled trial that differed only in the direction of the finding of the principal study end point were submitted for peer review to 2 journals in 2008-2009. Of 238 reviewers for The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research randomly allocated to review either a positive or a no-difference version of the manuscript, 210 returned reviews. RESULTS: Reviewers were more likely to recommend the positive version of the test manuscript for publication than the no-difference version (97.3% vs 80.0%, P < .001). Reviewers detected more errors in the no-difference version than in the positive version (0.85 vs 0.41, P < .001). Reviewers awarded higher methods scores to the positive manuscript than to the no-difference manuscript (8.24 vs 7.53, P = .005), although the "Methods" sections in the 2 versions were identical. CONCLUSIONS: Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript. %@ 1538-3679; 0003-9926

@article{Emerson2010, abstract = {BACKGROUND: If positive-outcome bias exists, it threatens the integrity of evidence-based medicine. METHODS: We sought to determine whether positive-outcome bias is present during peer review by testing whether peer reviewers would (1) recommend publication of a "positive" version of a fabricated manuscript over an otherwise identical "no-difference" version, (2) identify more purposefully placed errors in the no-difference version, and (3) rate the "Methods" section in the positive version more highly than the identical "Methods" section in the no-difference version. Two versions of a well-designed randomized controlled trial that differed only in the direction of the finding of the principal study end point were submitted for peer review to 2 journals in 2008-2009. Of 238 reviewers for The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research randomly allocated to review either a positive or a no-difference version of the manuscript, 210 returned reviews. RESULTS: Reviewers were more likely to recommend the positive version of the test manuscript for publication than the no-difference version (97.3% vs 80.0%, P < .001). Reviewers detected more errors in the no-difference version than in the positive version (0.85 vs 0.41, P < .001). Reviewers awarded higher methods scores to the positive manuscript than to the no-difference manuscript (8.24 vs 7.53, P = .005), although the "Methods" sections in the 2 versions were identical. CONCLUSIONS: Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.}, added-at = {2023-02-03T11:44:35.000+0100}, author = {Emerson, Gwendolyn B and Warme, Winston J and Wolf, Fredric M and Heckman, James D and Brand, Richard A and Leopold, Seth S}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2cca18f8e90ed7d94c7917404152f035b/jepcastel}, city = {Department of Orthopaedics, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195-6500, USA.}, doi = {10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406}, interhash = {27f21ec2cd24438fc5f2a4586ed026f0}, intrahash = {cca18f8e90ed7d94c7917404152f035b}, isbn = {1538-3679; 0003-9926}, issn = {1538-3679}, journal = {Archives of internal medicine}, keywords = {Humans LogisticModels OutcomeAssessment(HealthCare) PeerReview PeriodicalsasTopic PublicationBias Research RCT}, month = {11}, note = {6232<m:linebreak></m:linebreak>JID: 0372440; ppublish;}, number = 21, pages = {1934-9}, pmid = {21098355}, timestamp = {2023-05-04T08:59:38.000+0200}, title = {Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098355}, volume = 170, year = 2010 }