ArticleContemporary clinical trials2007
Presentation in relation to publication of results from clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?Systematic reviews · 2013Article
- Are results from pharmaceutical-company-sponsored studies available to the public?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResults from clinical trials are typically disseminated first by presentation at scientific meetings. An important question has to do with the role of presentation in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the journals as well as the effect of presentation in speeding, or delaying subsequent publication. The aim of this research is focused on presentation practices of trialists to examine their effect on the timing of publications of clinical trial results.
methodsSix hundred and one (601) trials published in 1996 and 1997 were identified via MEDLINE using medical subject heading "clinical trials" or the occurrence of the term in the text and by limiting to publication type "clinical trial". Authors of those trials were surveyed to determine prior presentation history for the identified trials.
resultsAmong the 601 trials identified, complete responses to questionnaires were obtained for 379 (63%) trials. The median time from completion to first submission of the primary results manuscript was 11 months and the median time from completion to publication was 25 months for the 220 trials involving presentation prior to submission for publication. The corresponding median times from completion to first submission and publication for the subset of trials not involving presentation prior to the submission were 8 and 19 months (159 trials), respectively. The adjusted relative hazard for publication for trials involving presentation prior to first submission was 0.55 versus trials not involving presentation prior to first submission (95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.69).
conclusionDespite the importance of dissemination of results prior to publication, investigators should carefully weigh a potential gain in quality against a potential for delay in submission of the primary results manuscript by presentation at scientific meetings. The findings of our study suggest that presentation prior to submission may increase time to publication. Inclusion of presentation dates in clinical trial registers should be considered to allow future studies investigating presentation and publication practices.
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.