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
Concept Representation Reflects Multimodal Abstraction: A Framework for Embodied Semantics
Leonardo Fernandino,Jeffrey R. Binder,Rutvik H. Desai,Suzanne L. Pendl,Colin Humphries,William L. Gross,Lisa L. Conant,Mark S. Seidenberg +7 more
TL;DR: The results indicate that aspects of conceptual knowledge are encoded in multimodal and higher level unimodal areas involved in processing the corresponding types of information during perception and action, in agreement with embodied theories of semantics.
Journal ArticleDOI
Kaptive Web: User-Friendly Capsule and Lipopolysaccharide Serotype Prediction for Klebsiella Genomes
TL;DR: The characterization of a further 309 genomes indicated that such diversity is common among the multidrug-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.
Journal ArticleDOI
Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries.
Christine Schmucker,Lisa K Schell,Susan Portalupi,Patrick Oeller,Laura Cabrera,Dirk Bassler,Guido Schwarzer,Roberta W. Scherer,Gerd Antes,Erik von Elm,Joerg J Meerpohl +10 more
TL;DR: A systematic review determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or included in trial registries to suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.
Journal ArticleDOI
ENDOCRINOLOGY OF PREGNANCY: Gestational diabetes mellitus: definition, aetiological and clinical aspects
TL;DR: The pathogenesis and aetiology of GDM is revisited in order to better understand its clinical presentation and outcomes and screening recommendations and diagnosis criteria have been recently updated.
Journal ArticleDOI
Transcriptome-wide identification of NMD-targeted human mRNAs reveals extensive redundancy between SMG6- and SMG7-mediated degradation pathways
Martino Colombo,Martino Colombo,Evangelos D. Karousis,Joëll Bourquin,Rémy Bruggmann,Oliver Mühlemann +5 more
TL;DR: A meta-analysis approach in which transcriptome profiling of knockdowns and rescues of the three NMD factors UPF1, SMG6, and SMG7 are combined provides evidence that this combinatorial approach identifies NMD-targeted transcripts more reliably than previous attempts that focused on inactivation of single N MD factors.
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.