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
Journal ArticleDOI
An emergentist perspective on the origin of number sense.
Marco Zorzi,Alberto Testolin +1 more
TL;DR: It is shown that deep neural networks endowed with basic visuospatial processing exhibit a remarkable performance in numerosity discrimination before any experience-dependent learning, whereas unsupervised sensory experience with visual sets leads to subsequent improvement of number acuity and reduces the influence of continuous visual cues.
Journal ArticleDOI
Computational methods to identify metabolic sub-networks based on metabolomic profiles
Clément Frainay,Fabien Jourdan +1 more
TL;DR: This review presents the main graph approaches used to interpret metabolomic data using metabolic networks and provides some guidelines for relevant sub‐network extraction and also suggest a range of applications for most methods.
Journal ArticleDOI
Recent advances in the detection of brown adipose tissue in adult humans: a review.
Frank J. Ong,Basma A. Ahmed,Stephan Oreskovich,Denis P. Blondin,Tahniyah Haq,Norman B. Konyer,Michael D. Noseworthy,François Haman,Andre C. Carpentier,Katherine M. Morrison,Gregory R. Steinberg +10 more
TL;DR: The various methodologies used to measure BAT metabolic activity in humans are discussed and critically evaluated to provide a contemporary assessment of protocols which may be useful in interpreting research findings and guiding the development of future studies.
Posted ContentDOI
Kaptive Web: user-friendly capsule and lipopolysaccharide serotype prediction for Klebsiella genomes
TL;DR: Characterisation of a further 309 genomes indicates that extensive K and O locus diversity is common among the multi-drug resistant clones and that these loci represent useful epidemiological markers for strain subtyping, reinforcing the need for rapid, reliable and accessible typing methods such as Kaptive Web.
Posted ContentDOI
The openCARP Simulation Environment for Cardiac Electrophysiology
Gernot Plank,Axel Loewe,Aurel Neic,Christoph M. Augustin,Yung-Lin Huang,Matthias A. F. Gsell,Elias Karabelas,Mark Nothstein,Anton J. Prassl,Jorge Sánchez,Gunnar Seemann,Edward J. Vigmond +11 more
TL;DR: OpenCARP as mentioned in this paper is a Python-based simulator for cardiac electrophysiology, which allows developing and sharing simulation pipelines which automate in silico experiments including all modeling and simulation steps to increase reproducibility and productivity.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.
Maria Kleinstäuber,Michael Witthöft,Andrés Steffanowski,Harm W.J. van Marwijk,Wolfgang Hiller,Michael J. Lambert +5 more
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.
Colin B. Begg,Mildred K. Cho,Susan Eastwood,Richard Horton,David Moher,Ingram Olkin,Roy M. Pitkin,Drummond Rennie,Kenneth F. Schulz,David L. Simel,Donna F. Stroup +10 more
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
Colin B. Begg,Mildred K. Cho,Susan Eastwood,Richard Horton,David Moher,Ingram Olkin,Roy M. Pitkin,Drummond Rennie,Kenneth F. Schulz,David L. Simel,Donna F. Stroup +10 more
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.