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

Effects of temperature and UVR on organic matter fluxes and the metabolic activity of Acropora muricata.

TL;DR: It is demonstrated that seawater warming and UVR not only affect coral physiology, but also the way corals interact with the surrounding seawater, with potential consequences for coral reef biogeochemical cycles and food webs.
Journal ArticleDOI

Proactive community case management and child survival: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

TL;DR: An unblinded, cluster randomised controlled trial in rural Mali aims to test the efficacy of the addition of door-to-door proactive case detection by CHWs compared with a conventional approach to iCCM service delivery in reducing under-five mortality.
Journal ArticleDOI

Thermodynamics and kinetics of the FoF1-ATPase: application of the probability isotherm

TL;DR: Numerical solution of the Rate Isotherm suggests that the experimental results may be more consistent with damage to the enzyme caused by its isolation from the biomembrane and its experimental fixation, resulting in non-physiological friction within the enzyme's rotary mechanism.
Posted ContentDOI

Global pleiotropic effects in adaptively evolved Escherichia coli lacking CRP reveal molecular mechanisms that define growth physiology

TL;DR: The system-wide pleiotropic effects that redress the significant perturbations caused by the deletion of global transcriptional regulator CRP in Escherichia coli when evolved in the presence of glucose are determined.
Posted ContentDOI

Host phylogeny and host ecology structure the mammalian gut microbiota at different taxonomic scales

TL;DR: The findings suggest that host phylogeny may structure the gut microbiota at broad taxonomic scales, but that host ecology may be more influential in shaping the gut microbiotas of closely related host species.
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)