Relevance of cohort studies for the study of transplant infectious diseases.

The debate on the merits of observational studies as compared with randomized trials is ongoing. We will briefly touch on this subject, and demonstrate the role of cohort studies for the description of infectious disease patterns after transplantation. The potential benefits of cohort studies for the clinical management of patients outside of the expected gain in epidemiological knowledge are reviewed. The newly established Swiss Transplantation Cohort Study and in particular the part focusing on infectious diseases will serve as an illustration. A neglected area of research is the indirect value of large, multicenter cohort studies. These benefits can range from a deepened collaboration to the development of common definitions and guidelines. Unfortunately, very few data exist on the role of such indirect effects on improving quality of patient management. This review postulates an important role for cohort studies, which should not be viewed as inferior but complementary to established research tools, in particular randomized trials. Randomized trials remain the least bias-prone method to establish knowledge regarding the significance of diagnostic or therapeutic measures. Cohort studies have the power to reflect a real-world situation and to pinpoint areas of knowledge as well as of uncertainty. Prerequisite is a prospective design requiring a set of inclusive data coupled with the meticulous insistence on data retrieval and quality.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.