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
Response of Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile and its associated N2 fixers to different combinations of temperature and light levels
Manuela Gertrudis García-Márquez,Víctor Fernández-Juárez,José Carlos Rodríguez-Castañeda,Nona S. R. Agawin +3 more
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of different light levels and temperatures on Posidonia oceanica, the endemic seagrass species in the Mediterranean Sea, and their N2 fixing community were assessed.
Posted ContentDOI
Are there Physical Linkages between Genes that have Synergistic Fitness Effects
Juliet Byrnes,John M. Murray,Mark M. Tanaka,Ben Goldys,Antony Bellanto,Luis Cayetano,William B. Sherwin +6 more
TL;DR: A meta-analysis and simulations indicated a tendency for genetic combinations with an epistatic effect on fitness to occur in an environment of reduced meiotic recombination.
Posted ContentDOI
Using a Whole Genome Co-expression Network to Inform the Functional Characterisation of Predicted Genomic Elements from<i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>Transcriptomic Data
TL;DR: A whole genome co-expression network was created using Mycobacterium tuberculosis transcriptomic data from publicly available RNA-sequencing experiments covering a wide variety of experimental conditions as discussed by the authors .
Posted ContentDOI
Unexpected Complexity of the Ammonia Monooxygenase in Archaea
TL;DR: In this paper , the structure of the copper-dependent ammonia monooxygenase was investigated by blue-native gel electrophoresis and proteomics from native membrane complexes of two AOA.
Posted ContentDOI
Evaluating risk detection methods to uncover ontogenic-mediated adverse drug effect mechanisms in children
TL;DR: In this article, a population stratification method (the proportional reporting ratio or PRR) and a generalized additive model (the GAM) were used to identify and quantify ADE risk at varying reporting rates and dynamics.
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.