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
Journal ArticleDOI

Zebrafish knock-ins swim into the mainstream.

TL;DR: Three research articles describing CRISPR/Cas9-based approaches for knocking in mutations in zebrafish are described, validating the translational relevance of generating knock-in mutations and opening the door to many possibilities for their further study.
Journal ArticleDOI

Regional and hemispheric susceptibility of the temporal lobe to FTLD-TDP type C pathology

TL;DR: Anterior temporal lobe (ATL) degeneration is most often caused by FTLD-TDP type C pathology, and within ATLs, medial regions are more vulnerable than lateral ones.
Journal ArticleDOI

Low recombination rates in sexual species and sex-asex transitions.

TL;DR: It is shown that a yet undescribed species of brine shrimp Artemia from Kazakhstan, the closest known relative of the asexual Artemia parthenogenetica, has one of the shortest genetic linkage maps known, suggesting either no obligate crossover or crossovers concentrated at terminal positions with little effect on recombination.
Journal ArticleDOI

Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19

Ádám Kun
- 03 Jun 2020 - 
TL;DR: The analysis of 833 documents published on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prior to 19 March 2020 shows that these times shrunk by a factor of ten, demonstrating that the publication process—if necessary—can be sped up.
Journal ArticleDOI

DNA extraction protocols may influence biodiversity detected in the intestinal microbiome: a case study from wild Prussian carp, Carassius gibelio.

TL;DR: It is shown that significant differences were observed in numbers of reads, OTUs, Shannon index and taxonomic composition between two different DNA extraction protocols for intestine of Prussian carp, and differences were also evident between microbial communities in the intestinal mucosa and intestinal content.
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)