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 CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished.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.

Uptake of new treatment strategies for deep vein thrombosis: an international audit.

OBJECTIVE: Study of the uptake of new medical technologies provides useful information on the transfer of published evidence into usual practice. We conducted an audit of selected hospitals in three countries (Canada, France, and Switzerland) to identify clinical predictors of low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin use and outpatient treatment, and to compare the pace of uptake of these new therapeutic approaches across hospitals. DESIGN: Historical review of medical records. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed the medical records of 3043 patients diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in five Canadian, two French, and two Swiss teaching hospitals from 1994 to 1998. Measures. We explored independent clinical variables associated with LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment, and determined crude and adjusted rates of LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment across hospitals. RESULTS: For the years studied, the overall rates of LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment in the study sample were 34.1 and 15.8%, respectively, with higher rates of use in later years. Many comorbidities were negatively associated with outpatient treatment, and risk-adjusted rates of use of these new approaches varied significantly across hospitals. CONCLUSION: There has been a relatively rapid uptake of LMW heparins and outpatient treatment for DVT in their early years of availability, but the pace of uptake has varied considerably across hospitals and countries.

Are joint audits associated with higher audit fees?

In its October 2010 Green Paper on audit policy, the European Commission suggested that joint audits might be a way of improving the audit market in Europe. However, some parties consider that a joint audit system is not an efficient solution because the perceived improvements in audit quality, if any, are not commensurate with the significant increase in audit fees. We compare audit fees paid during the years 2007-2011 by listed companies in France, where joint audits are mandatory, with those paid by British and Italian companies. Theory suggests that audit fees in countries with high investor protection, such as the UK, are likely to be greater than those in countries with lower investor protection, such as France and Italy, ceteris paribus. However, we find significantly higher audit fees in France after controlling for well-documented auditor, client, and engagement attributes, which vary across countries. Furthermore, since we do not find statistically significant differences in the magnitude of abnormal accruals, the higher audit fees observed in France do not appear to be associated with higher audit quality.