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.

Legal Translation and the Bilingual Publication of Roman Imperial Constitutions

The present paper aims at investigating translation techniques and publication methods of Roman imperial constitutions published in Greek in the eastern provinces of the empire, where the official Latin was not well-established. Language, being a tool for normative communication must be comprehensible to the addressees of the norm, therefore publication of a normative text in a multilingual society brings along difficulties related in particular to the translatability of legal terminology. Language problems appear, however, not only in the level of communication, but also in those of implementation and interpretation of norms. Linguistic diversity, which currently afflicts legislators in the EU, has already been a challenge for the legislators in the Roman Empire. Major difficulty was the necessity of expressing Roman legal concepts in Greek language. Centralized translation system and consequent use of terminology helped to adapt Greek for the purposes of Roman legislator creating new technical vocabulary.

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.'

Panel report ECIS 2012: publication strategy for junior researchers: quantity vs. quality, importance of the first authorship and collaboration

The publication record is a key component of a successful academic career in IS. Despite its importance, its definition - especially for junior researchers―remains unclear. Is it better to have one A-publication or three Bpublications? Does being the third author on an A-publication carry more weight than being the first author on a Bpublication? Is it better to publish with as few co-authors as possible to demonstrate ability for independent work or is publishing with others a sign of good teamwork and academic excellence? Faced with these uncertainties, young researchers increasingly question the choices they make regarding their publication strategy. If unaddressed, these issues are bound to interfere with the quality of the IS research and scholars’ job satisfaction. This article raises these concerns associated with a publication strategy for junior researchers and reports the views voiced by five academics at a panel session at the European Conference on Information Systems 2012. In particular, the following topics are discussed: quantity vs. quality, value of the first authorship, the “optimal” number of authors, and the issues of co-authorship with an academic supervisor.

Publication trade-offs for junior scholars in IS: conjoint analysis of preferences for quality, first authorship, collaboration and time

A publication record provides evidence of research productivity and is critical for junior scholars starting their careers in academia. Publication attributes, such as level of the publication outlet, order and number of authors, are typically used to evaluate its quality. However, time spent on a publication is a limited commodity, and researchers face significant trade-offs when deciding which publications they should concentrate on. To better understand the choices made, conjoint analysis with 241 junior IS scholars was conducted. We find that when “quality vs. number of authors” and “quality vs. time” trade-offs are considered, quality is prioritized. However, the emphasis on quality is less pronounced when “rank as an author” is at stake. Especially Ph.D. students tend to choose first authorship when dealing with “quality vs. rank as an author” trade-off. Our findings provide intriguing insights into how publication attributes weigh against each other when research collaboration decisions are made.

Citation analysis of faculty publication: beyond Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index.

When evaluated for promotion or tenure, faculty members are increasingly judged more on the quality than on the quantity of their scholarly publications. As a result, they want help from librarians in locating all citations to their published works for documentation in their curriculum vitae. Citation analysis using Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index provides a logical starting point in measuring quality, but the limitations of these sources leave a void in coverage of citations to an author's work. This article discusses alternative and additional methods of locating citations to published works.

Initiation and continuation of randomized trials after the publication of a trial stopped early for benefit asking the same study question: STOPIT-3 study design

BACKGROUND Randomized control trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) are increasingly common and, on average, overestimate the relative magnitude of benefit by approximately 30%. Investigators stop trials early when they consider it is no longer ethical to enroll patients in a control group. The goal of this systematic review is to determine how investigators of ongoing or planned RCTs respond to the publication of a truncated RCT addressing a similar question. METHODS/DESIGN We will conduct systematic reviews to update the searches of 210 truncated RCTs to identify similar trials ongoing at the time of publication, or started subsequently, to the truncated trials ('subsequent RCTs'). Reviewers will determine in duplicate the similarity between the truncated and subsequent trials. We will analyze the epidemiology, distribution, and predictors of subsequent RCTs. We will also contact authors of subsequent trials to determine reasons for beginning, continuing, or prematurely discontinuing their own trials, and the extent to which they rely on the estimates from truncated trials. DISCUSSION To the extent that investigators begin or continue subsequent trials they implicitly disagree with the decision to stop the truncated RCT because of an ethical mandate to administer the experimental treatment. The results of this study will help guide future decisions about when to stop RCTs early for benefit.

Full-text publication of abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses.

INTRODUCTION Empirical evidence has indicated that only a subsample of studies conducted reach full-text publication and this phenomenon has become known as publication bias. A form of publication bias is the selectively delayed full publication of conference abstracts. The objective of this article was to examine the publication status of oral abstracts and poster-presentation abstracts, included in the scientific program of the 82nd and 83rd European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, held in 2006 and 2007, and to identify factors associated with full-length publication. METHODS A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed in April 2013 using author names and keywords from the abstract title to locate abstract and full-article publications. Information regarding mode of presentation, type of affiliation, geographical origin, statistical results, and publication details were collected and analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Approximately 51 per cent of the EOS 2006 and 55 per cent of the EOS 2007 abstracts appeared in print more than 5 years post congress. A mean period of 1.32 years elapsed between conference and publication date. Mode of presentation (oral or poster), use of statistical analysis, and research subject area were significant predictors for publication success. LIMITATIONS Inherent discrepancies of abstract reporting, mainly related to presentation of preliminary results and incomplete description of methods, may be considered in analogous studies. CONCLUSIONS On average 52.2 per cent of the abstracts presented at the two EOS conferences reached full publication. Abstracts presented orally, including statistical analysis, were more likely to get published.

Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials.

IMPORTANCE The discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) raises ethical concerns and often wastes scarce research resources. The epidemiology of discontinued RCTs, however, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and publication history of discontinued RCTs and to investigate factors associated with RCT discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with nonpublication. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective cohort of RCTs based on archived protocols approved by 6 research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics and planned recruitment from included protocols. Last follow-up of RCTs was April 27, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Completion status, reported reasons for discontinuation, and publication status of RCTs as determined by correspondence with the research ethics committees, literature searches, and investigator surveys. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 11.6 years (range, 8.8-12.6 years), 253 of 1017 included RCTs were discontinued (24.9% [95% CI, 22.3%-27.6%]). Only 96 of 253 discontinuations (37.9% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.3%]) were reported to ethics committees. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was poor recruitment (101/1017; 9.9% [95% CI, 8.2%-12.0%]). In multivariable analysis, industry sponsorship vs investigator sponsorship (8.4% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.43]; P < .001) and a larger planned sample size in increments of 100 (-0.7%; OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .04) were associated with lower rates of discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Discontinued trials were more likely to remain unpublished than completed trials (55.1% vs 33.6%; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.29-4.43]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials.