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

Can Cynodon dactylon be used to suppress invasive weeds? The effects of density-dependent on the growth and development of Tagetes minuta and Gutenbergia cordifolia

TL;DR: This study suggests that C. dactylon can be successfully used to manage the two invasive plants, thus, improving forage production and biomass in affected rangelands.
Posted ContentDOI

An open database of resting-state fMRI in awake rats

TL;DR: This paper shares an open rsfMRI database acquired in 90 rats with a well-established awake imaging paradigm that avoids anesthesia interference, and showcases inter-regional functional connectivity and functional networks calculated from the database.
Posted ContentDOI

Intravital imaging reveals cell cycle-dependent satellite cell migration during muscle regeneration

TL;DR: This study demonstrates that in satellite cells, the ERK-CDK2 axis not only promotes the G1/S transition, but also migration speed, which may provide a novel mechanism for efficient muscle regeneration.
Posted ContentDOI

Discovering and prioritizing candidate resistance genes against soybean pests by integrating GWAS and gene coexpression networks

TL;DR: This work integrated publicly available genome-wide association studies and transcriptomic data to prioritize candidate resistance genes against the insects Aphis glycines and Spodoptera litura, and the nematode Heterodera glycines, finding some overlap of candidate genes between insect species, but not between insects and H. glycines.
Posted ContentDOI

Statistical power of clinical trials has increased whilst effect size remained stable: an empirical analysis of 137 032 clinical trials between 1975-2017

TL;DR: This study demonstrates that sufficient power inclinical trials is still problematic, although the situation is slowly improving, and encourages further efforts to increase statistical power in clinical trials to guarantee rigorous and reproducible evidence-based medicine.
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)