Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Duplicate Publications as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

[Duplicate publication a way of embellishing research results. Unethical misuse which threatens the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analysis].

Studies showing favourable results tend to be published more than once. This practice of duplicate publication is, however, dishonest and unethical on the part of scientists and pharmaceutical companies. Inclusion into a meta-analysis of the results from multiple papers derived from one and the same controlled study gives an inflated picture of the efficacy of the treatment. If manufacturers and researchers not only made all their study data public but also registered trials prospectively these pitfalls could be avoided.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2004

The need for trial identifiers.

The medical literature is distorted by publication bias, duplicate publication and under-reporting of clinical trials. This can create problems in systematic numbering systems. The inclusion of trial identifiers reviews and meta-analysis which are increasingly used as the basis for evidence-based guidelines and therefore for treatment decisions. Various schemes for identifying trials and their associated publications are reviewed. These include trial registers and trial in all publications could greatly enhance the value of the medical literature and increase the robustness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2005

An observational study of duplicate presentation rates between two national orthopedic meetings.

BACKGROUND: National meetings such as those of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) are invaluable in the dissemination of new research findings. Given the limits of meeting agendas, investigators who present the same paper at multiple meetings prevent other presentations on potentially important original research. To determine the incidence of duplicate presentation of research between recent COA and AAOS meetings and between national meetings (AAOS and subspecialty), we conducted an observational study. METHODS: We hand-searched all podium papers and posters from the 2001 COA annual meeting for duplicate presentation at the 2001 and 2002 AAOS annual meetings and subspecialty meetings held in the USA. We evaluated summary data abstracted from the duplicate presentations for consistency. RESULTS: Of 148 presentations at the 2001 COA meeting, 29 presentations (paper and poster) were duplicated at the 2001 or 2002 AAOS meeting: effectively 1 paper in 5 (19.5%). Canadian investigators were significantly more likely to present the same paper at both meetings than Americans (79% v. 13%, respectively; p < 0.01). Those who presented papers at COA altered their AAOS presentations in a variety of ways: by changing the wording in the title of their paper (24% of the time), adding or removing authors (38%), changing authorship order (34%) and changing the sample size (31%). Duplicate presentation rates between AAOS and other orthopedic subspecialty meetings averaged 11.4% (range 3.4%-26.4%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 20% duplicate presentation rate between the COA and AAOS annual meetings, and an 11% rate between the AAOS and subspecialty meetings. Stricter enforcement of guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings at both national meetings may limit this practice.

Canada↗
PubMed2006

Duplicate publication.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Consensus Statements as Topic↗