<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec id="j_jdis.201623_s_005_w2aab2b8b6b1b7b1aab1c15b1Aa"><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To address the under-reporting of research results, with emphasis on the under-reporting/distorted reporting of adverse events in the biomedical research literature.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201623_s_006_w2aab2b8b6b1b7b1aab1c15b2Aa"><h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3><p>A four-step approach is used: (1) To identify the characteristics of literature that make it adequate to support policy; (2) to show how each of these characteristics becomes degraded to make inadequate literature; (3) to identify incentives to prevent inadequate literature; and (4) to show policy implications of inadequate literature.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201623_s_007_w2aab2b8b6b1b7b1aab1c15b3Aa"><h3>Findings</h3><p>This review has provided reasons for, and examples of, adverse health effects of myriad substances (1) being under-reported in the premiere biomedical literature, or (2) entering this literature in distorted form. Since there is no way to gauge the extent of this under/distorted-reporting, the quality and credibility of the ‘premiere’ biomedical literature is unknown. Therefore, any types of meta-analyses or scientometric analyses of this literature will have unknown quality and credibility. The most sophisticated scientometric analysis cannot compensate for a highly flawed database.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201623_s_008_w2aab2b8b6b1b7b1aab1c15b4Aa"><h3>Research limitations</h3><p>The main limitation is in identifying examples of under-reporting. There are many incentives for under-reporting and few dis-incentives.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201623_s_009_w2aab2b8b6b1b7b1aab1c15b5Aa"><h3>Practical implications</h3><p>Almost all research publications, addressing causes of disease, treatments for disease, diagnoses for disease, scientometrics of disease and health issues, and other aspects of healthcare, build upon previous healthcare-related research published. Many researchers will not have laboratories or other capabilities to replicate or validate the published research, and depend almost completely on the integrity of this literature. If the literature is distorted, then future research can be misguided, and health policy recommendations can be ineffective or worse.</p></sec><sec id="j_jdis.201623_s_010_w2aab2b8b6b1b7b1aab1c15b6Aa"><h3>Originality/value</h3><p>This review has examined a much wider range of technical and non-technical causes for under-reporting of adverse events in the biomedical literature than previous studies.</p></sec></abstract>

PurposeTo address the under-reporting of research results, with emphasis on the under-reporting/distorted reporting of adverse events in the biomedical research literature.Design/methodology/approachA four-step approach is used: (1) To identify the characteristics of literature that make it adequate to support policy; (2) to show how each of these characteristics becomes degraded to make inadequate literature; (3) to identify incentives to prevent inadequate literature; and (4) to show policy implications of inadequate literature.FindingsThis review has provided reasons for, and examples of, adverse health effects of myriad substances (1) being under-reported in the premiere biomedical literature, or (2) entering this literature in distorted form. Since there is no way to gauge the extent of this under/distorted-reporting, the quality and credibility of the ‘premiere’ biomedical literature is unknown. Therefore, any types of meta-analyses or scientometric analyses of this literature will have unknown quality and credibility. The most sophisticated scientometric analysis cannot compensate for a highly flawed database.Research limitationsThe main limitation is in identifying examples of under-reporting. There are many incentives for under-reporting and few dis-incentives.Practical implicationsAlmost all research publications, addressing causes of disease, treatments for disease, diagnoses for disease, scientometrics of disease and health issues, and other aspects of healthcare, build upon previous healthcare-related research published. Many researchers will not have laboratories or other capabilities to replicate or validate the published research, and depend almost completely on the integrity of this literature. If the literature is distorted, then future research can be misguided, and health policy recommendations can be ineffective or worse.Originality/valueThis review has examined a much wider range of technical and non-technical causes for under-reporting of adverse events in the biomedical literature than previous studies.

Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature

Journal of Data and Information Science

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

{"article-title":"Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature"}

PurposeTo address the under-reporting of research results, with emphasis on the under-reporting/distorted reporting of adverse events in the biomedical...

Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature

Article Category: Expert Review

Pubblicato online: 01 set 2017

Pagine: 10 - 32

Ricevuto: 22 set 2016

Accettato: 27 set 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201623

Parole chiave
Under-reporting, Publication bias, Reporting bias, Manufactured research, Research misconduct, Research malfeasance, Biomedical literature

© 2016 Ronald N. Kostoff

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Under-reporting of Adverse Events in the Biomedical Literature

Article Category: Expert Review

Pubblicato online: 01 set 2017

Pagine: 10 - 32

Ricevuto: 22 set 2016

Accettato: 27 set 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201623

Parole chiaveUnder-reporting, Publication bias, Reporting bias, Manufactured research, Research misconduct, Research malfeasance, Biomedical literature

© 2016 Ronald N. Kostoff

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Parole chiave
Under-reporting, Publication bias, Reporting bias, Manufactured research, Research misconduct, Research malfeasance, Biomedical literature