ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Time to ensure that clinical trial appropriate results are actually published.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- No One Likes a Snitch.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOutcome reporting bias is a well-known fact in clinical research. It's critical since readers believe that published articles are reliable and accurate.
methodsThe need for investigators to register the trials at the start have made it possible to compare the content of the published article with the registered information.
resultsNearly one-third of clinical trials have changed their primary outcome from the time of registration to publication.
conclusionsEditors should implement measures aimed at preventing outcome reporting bias. To this end, it is proposed that authors, when submitting a manuscript to a journal, should also submit all trial information they have posted on a registry. Authors should comment on the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in the manuscript with respect to that included on the registry. Peer review should only start after the editorial staff has checked the accuracy of the manuscript content with the trial's registered information. This straightforward, although admittedly somewhat demanding exercise for editorial staff, will help ensure the accuracy of published articles and, hence, reduce outcome reporting bias.
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.