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

Sailing in rough waters: examining volatility of fMRI noise

TL;DR: The findings challenge the assumption that fMRI scanner noise has constant volatility (in fact, the lower the value of H, the more pronounced the oscillations of the volatility, and hence the more “severe” is the violation of the constant volatility assumption) and add to the steady accumulation of studies suggesting implementing methods to model heteroscedasticity may improve fMRI data analysis.
Posted ContentDOI

Multi-modal locomotor costs explain sexual size but not shape dimorphism in a leaf-mimicking insect

TL;DR: In this paper, a combination of empirical measures of flight performance and substrate adhesion, and modelling of body aerodynamics was used to show that large body size impairs both flight and landing (attachment) performance in male leaf insects (Phyllium philippinicum), a species where relatively small and skinny males fly through the canopy in search of large sedentary females.
Posted ContentDOI

Morphologically constrained modeling of spinous inhibition in the somato-sensory cortex

TL;DR: 3D correlative light-electron microscopy approach allowing the analysis of specific populations of synapses in genetically defined neuronal types in intact brain circuits is developed, indicating that spinous inhibition is locally more efficient than shaft inhibition and that it can decouple voltage and calcium signaling, potentially impacting synaptic plasticity.
Posted ContentDOI

Gels for Live Analysis of Compartmentalized Environments (GLAnCE): A Tissue Model to Probe Tumour Phenotypes at Tumour-Stroma Interfaces

TL;DR: It was found that CAF presence resulted in the establishment of an invasion-permissive, interface-specific matrix environment, that leads to carcinoma cell movement outwards from the tumour edge and tumour cell invasion.
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)