scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Positive Outcomes Influence the Rate and Time to Publication, but Not the Impact Factor of Publications of Clinical Trial Results

TLDR
Clinical trials with positive outcomes have significantly higher rates and shorter times to publication than those with negative results, however, no differences have been found in terms of impact factor.
Abstract
Objectives Publication bias may affect the validity of evidence based medical decisions. The aim of this study is to assess whether research outcomes affect the dissemination of clinical trial findings, in terms of rate, time to publication, and impact factor of journal publications. Methods and Findings All drug-evaluating clinical trials submitted to and approved by a general hospital ethics committee between 1997 and 2004 were prospectively followed to analyze their fate and publication. Published articles were identified by searching Pubmed and other electronic databases. Clinical study final reports submitted to the ethics committee, final reports synopses available online and meeting abstracts were also considered as sources of study results. Study outcomes were classified as positive (when statistical significance favoring experimental drug was achieved), negative (when no statistical significance was achieved or it favored control drug) and descriptive (for non-controlled studies). Time to publication was defined as time from study closure to publication. A survival analysis was performed using a Cox regression model to analyze time to publication. Journal impact factors of identified publications were recorded. Publication rate was 48·4% (380/785). Study results were identified for 68·9% of all completed clinical trials (541/785). Publication rate was 84·9% (180/212) for studies with results classified as positive and 68·9% (128/186) for studies with results classified as negative (p<0·001). Median time to publication was 2·09 years (IC95 1·61–2·56) for studies with results classified as positive and 3·21 years (IC95 2·69–3·70) for studies with results classified as negative (hazard ratio 1·99 (IC95 1·55–2·55). No differences were found in publication impact factor between positive (median 6·308, interquartile range: 3·141–28·409) and negative result studies (median 8·266, interquartile range: 4·135–17·157). Conclusions Clinical trials with positive outcomes have significantly higher rates and shorter times to publication than those with negative results. However, no differences have been found in terms of impact factor.

read more

Citations
More filters
Posted ContentDOI

Learning Context-aware Structural Representations to Predict Antigen and Antibody Binding Interfaces

TL;DR: A unified deep learning-based framework to predict binding interfaces on both antibodies and antigens and it is shown that the attention layer not only improves performance, but also provides a biologically interpretable perspective into the mode of interaction.
Posted ContentDOI

Shallow evolutionary divergence between two Andean hummingbirds: Speciation with gene flow?

TL;DR: It is hypothesized that speciation likely occurred in the face of gene flow, driven by other ecological pressures or by sexual selection, and makes C. helianthea and C. bonapartei an appropriate system in which to search for the genetic basis of species differences employing genomics.
Journal ArticleDOI

Recent discoveries of influenza A drug target sites to combat virus replication.

TL;DR: This review brings together the aspects that relate to the identification of influenza A drug target sites and the findings from recent antiviral drug discovery strategies.
Journal ArticleDOI

simPATHy: a new method for simulating data from perturbed biological PATHways

TL;DR: This work proposes a method for simulating biological data – gene expression, RPKM/FPKM or protein abundances – from two conditions, namely, a reference condition and a perturbation of it, built upon probabilistic graphical models.
Posted ContentDOI

Understanding and mitigating some limitations of Illumina© MiSeq for environmental sequencing of Fungi

TL;DR: ITS-amplicon metabarcode studies using the illumina MiSeq sequencing platform are the current standard tool for fungal ecology studies, and challenges experienced while creating and using a ribosomal RNA gene (rDNA) amplicon library for an ecological study are reported.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.

TL;DR: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies examined the efficacy and tolerability of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products in adults with somatoform disorders in adults to improve optimal treatment decisions.
Journal ArticleDOI

Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.

TL;DR: For RCTs to ultimately benefit patients, the published report should be of the highest possible standard and should provide the reader with the ability to make informed judgments regarding the internal and external validity of the trial.
Journal ArticleDOI

Publication bias in clinical research

TL;DR: The presence of publication bias in a cohort of clinical research studies is confirmed and it is suggested that conclusions based only on a review of published data should be interpreted cautiously, especially for observational studies.
Journal ArticleDOI

Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement

TL;DR: For RCTs to ultimately benefit patients, the published report should be of the highest possible standard and accurate and complete reporting is needed.
Journal ArticleDOI

Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.

TL;DR: The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols and Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention.
Related Papers (5)