ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
74 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- A retrospective analysis of dissemination biases in the brief alcohol intervention literature.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2015Pooled it
- Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2009Pooled it
- Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.PloS one · 2008Pooled it
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and systems biology analysis in stem cell research and therapeutics development.Stem cells translational medicine · 2025Review
- Completion Rate and Positive Results Reporting Among Immunotherapy Trials in Breast Cancer, 2004-2023.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Publication of studies registered in Clinical Trials Registry of India: An audit of mood disorder research protocols from 2009-2019.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2023Article
- Publication bias in trials registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Is it a problem? A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- What's Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Assessing treatment effects and publication bias across different specialties in medicine: a meta-epidemiological study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Response to Lawrence DJ: the global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2021Article
- Current landscape of type 1 diabetes mellitus-related interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study.Acta diabetologica · 2021Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the fate of protocols approved by the French research ethics committees, a national system created by the French 1988 Huriet-Sérusclat Act; to assess publication bias at a national level.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingRepresentative sample of 25/48 French research ethics committees in 1994. PROTOCOLS: 649 research protocols approved by committees, with follow-up information.
main outcome measuresProtocols' initial characteristics (design, study size, investigator) abstracted from committees' archives; follow-up information (rates of initiation, completion, and publication) obtained from mailed questionnaire to principal investigators.
resultsCompleted questionnaires were available for 649/976 (69%) protocols. Of these, 581 (90%) studies were initiated, 501/581 (86%) were completed, and 190/501 (38%) were published. Studies with confirmatory results were more likely to be published as scientific papers than were studies with inconclusive results (adjusted odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 9.54). Moreover, studies with confirmatory results were published more quickly than studies with inconclusive results (hazard ratio 2.48, 1.36 to 4.55).
conclusionAt a national level, too many research studies are not completed, and among those completed too many are not published. We suggest capitalising on research ethics committees to register and follow all authorised research on human participants on a systematic and prospective basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.