Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30).Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.

Impact factor statistics and publication practice: What can we learn? (Editorial)

Peer review procedures and citation statistics are important yet often neglected components of the scientific publication process. Here I discuss fundamental consequences of such quality measures for the scientific community and propose three remedial actions: (1) use of a ''Combined Impact Estimate'' as a measure of citation statistics, (2) adoption of an open reviewing policy and (3) acceleration of the publication process in order to raise the reputation of the entire discipline (in our case: behavioural science). Authors, reviewers and editors are invited to contribute to the improvement of publication practice.

Ring size of somatostatin analogues (ODT-8) modulates receptor selectivity and binding affinity

The synthesis, biological testing, and NMR studies of several analogues of H-c[Cys (3)-Phe (6)-Phe (7)-DTrp (8)-Lys (9)-Thr (10)-Phe (11)-Cys (14)]-OH (ODT-8, a pan-somatostatin analogue, 1) have been performed to assess the effect of changing the stereochemistry and the number of atoms in the disulfide bridge on binding affinity. Cysteine at positions 3 and/or 14 (somatostatin numbering) were/was substituted with d-cysteine, norcysteine, D-norcysteine, homocysteine, and/or D-homocysteine. The 3D structure analysis of selected partially selective, bioactive analogues (3, 18, 19, and 21) was carried out in dimethylsulfoxide. Interestingly and not unexpectedly, the 3D structures of these analogues comprised the pharmacophore for which the analogues had the highest binding affinities (i.e., sst 4 in all cases).

Ring size in octreotide amide modulates differently agonist versus antagonist binding affinity and selectivity

H-DPhe (2)-c[Cys (3)-Phe (7)-DTrp (8)-Lys (9)-Thr (10)-Cys (14)]-Thr (15)-NH2 (1) (a somatostatin agonist, SRIF numbering) and H-Cpa (2)-c[DCys (3)-Tyr (7)-DTrp (8)-Lys (9)-Thr (10)-Cys (14)]-Nal (15)-NH2 (4) (a somatostatin antagonist) are based on the structure of octreotide that binds to three somatostatin receptor subtypes (sst 2/3/5) with significant binding affinity. Analogues of 1 and 4 were synthesized with norcysteine (Ncy), homocysteine (Hcy), or D-homocysteine (DHcy) at positions 3 and/or 14. Introducing Ncy at positions 3 and 14 constrained the backbone flexibility, resulting in loss of binding affinity at all sst s. The introduction of Hcy at positions 3 and 14 improved selectivity for sst 2 as a result of significant loss of binding affinity at the other sst s. Substitution by DHcy at position 3 in the antagonist scaffold (5), on the other hand, resulted in a significant loss of binding affinity at sst 2 and sst 3 as compared to the different affinities of the parent compound (4). The 3D NMR structures of the analogues in dimethylsulfoxide are consistent with the observed binding affinities.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

Is characterization of a single isolate sufficient for valid publication of a new genus or species? Proposal to modify recommendation 30b of the Bacteriological Code (1990 Revision)

From 1990 to 2000, the number of published named taxa based upon new isolates at species and genus levels in International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, formerly International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, have increased by approximately four- and sevenfold, respectively. New taxa based upon characterization of only a single isolate remained at around 40% for both categories. The Bacteriological Code (1990 Revision) has no recommendations on the number of strains required for definition of new taxa. For a few groups, a minimum number of 5-10 strains has been suggested in minimal standards. Since an exponential increase in new taxa can be expected in the future, the authors discuss problems related to naming new species and genera based upon descriptions of a single isolate and suggest that this practice is re-evaluated. It is proposed that the following should be added to Recommendation 30b of the Bacteriological Code: 'Descriptions should be based on as many strains as possible (minimum five), representing different sources with respect to geography and ecology in order to be well characterized both phenotypically and genotypically, to establish the centre (from which the type strain could be chosen) and the extent of the cluster to be named. In addition, comparative studies should be performed, including reference strains that represent neighbouring species and/or genera, in order to give descriptions that are sufficiently detailed to allow differentiation from these neighbours.'