Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.
DOCUMENT
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20250619194946164936.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
Background: A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. Aim: A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. Results: 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. Conclusions: No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.
DOCUMENT
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
DOCUMENT
