Ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research: a joint journal and pharmaceutical industry perspective.

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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Improving Public Health Policy by Comparing the Public Response during the Start of COVID-19 and Monkeypox on Twitter in Germany: A Mixed Methods Study.Vaccines · 2022
   Article
2. Current Issues on Research Conducted to Improve Women's Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
   Article
3. Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).Drugs & aging · 2019
   Article
4. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017
   Article
5. Use of adjectives in abstracts when reporting results of randomized, controlled trials from industry and academia.Drugs in R&D · 2015
   Article
6. Reducing age of autism diagnosis: developmental social neuroscience meets public health challenge.Revista de neurologia · 2015
   Article
7. Publication practices and standards: recommendations from GSK Vaccines' author survey.Trials · 2014
   Article
8. Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications.BMC medicine · 2014
   Article
9. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.Lancet (London, England) · 2014
   Article
10. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013
    Article
11. Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions.CNS drugs · 2013
    Review
12. Haphazard reporting of deaths in clinical trials: a review of cases of ClinicalTrials.gov records and matched publications-a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2013
    Article
13. Credibility of industry-sponsored clinical research: hype or hope?Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2012
    Article
14. Commenting on ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2012
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Commenting on ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research.2012

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as