A retrospective analysis of dissemination biases in the brief alcohol intervention literature.

This study examined dissemination and reporting biases in the brief alcohol intervention literature. We used retrospective data from 179 controlled trials included in a meta-analysis on brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults. We examined whether the magnitude and direction of effect sizes were associated with publication type, identification source, language, funding, time lag between intervention and publication, number of reports, journal impact factor, and subsequent citations. Results indicated that effect sizes were larger for studies that had been funded (b = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.04, 0.23]), had a shorter time lag between intervention and publication (b = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.05, -.001]), and were cited more frequently (b = 0.01, 95% CI [+0.00, 0.01]). Studies that were cited more frequently by other authors also had greater odds of reporting positive effects (odds ratio = 1.10, 95% CI [1.02, 1.18]). Results indicated that time lag bias has increased recently: Larger and positive effect sizes were published more quickly in recent years. We found no evidence, however, that the magnitude or direction of effects was associated with location source, language, or journal impact factor. We conclude that dissemination biases may indeed occur in the social and behavioral science literature, as has been consistently documented in the medical literature. As such, primary researchers, journal reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers, and meta-analysts must be cognizant of the causes and consequences of these biases, and commit to engage in ethical research practices that attempt to minimize them. (PsycINFO Database Record