Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Nov 22;170(21):1934-9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406.

Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.

Author information

  • 1Department of Orthopaedics, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195-6500, USA.

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.

Comment in

  • Outcome-blinded peer review. [Arch Intern Med. 2011]
PMID:
21098355
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk