Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
CNS Drugs
Published in: CNS Drugs 9/2013

01-09-2013 | Letter to the Editor

Comment on: “Publication Bias, with a Focus on Psychiatry: Causes and Solutions”

Author: Ian Shrier

Published in: CNS Drugs | Issue 9/2013

Login to get access

Excerpt

Recently, Turner [1] reviewed publication bias and discussed different proposed solutions. The author suggests that the best solution is a model similar to the approval process for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In brief, authors would submit protocols for journal peer-review before the study is conducted. If the protocol was accepted as scientifically worthy, the paper would be reviewed again post-study in a very favorable light regardless of negative versus positive findings, and would be accepted provided it were well written, well presented, and so on. Protocol changes would be allowed but would need to be justified. …
Literature
1.
Turner EH. Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions. CNS Drugs. 2013;27(6):457–68.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Mirkin JN, Bach PB. Outcome-blinded peer review. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1213–4 (author reply 4).
3.
Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comment on: “Publication Bias, with a Focus on Psychiatry: Causes and Solutions”
Author
Ian Shrier
Publication date
01-09-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
CNS Drugs / Issue 9/2013
Print ISSN: 1172-7047
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1934
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-013-0098-2

Other articles of this Issue 9/2013

CNS Drugs 9/2013 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Author’s Reply to Shrier: “Publication Bias, With a Focus on Psychiatry: Causes and Solutions”

Leading Article

Prospects for Improving Brain Function in Individuals with Down Syndrome

Leading Article

Serotonin 5-HT1A Receptors as Targets for Agents to Treat Psychiatric Disorders: Rationale and Current Status of Research

Systematic Review

Efficacy and Tolerability of Perospirone in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Original Research Article

Levetiracetam Compared with Valproic Acid for the Prevention of Postoperative Seizures After Supratentorial Tumor Surgery: A Retrospective Chart Review

Adis Drug Evaluation

Nalmefene: A Review of Its Use in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence