Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26819213›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

Public availability of results of observational studies evaluating an intervention registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Marie Baudart, Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Agnes Dechartres, Romana Haneef, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marie BaudartCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 1, Place du parvis Notre Dame, 75181, Paris, Cedex 4, France.
Philippe RavaudCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 1, Place du parvis Notre Dame, 75181, Paris, Cedex 4, France.
Gabriel BaronCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 1, Place du parvis Notre Dame, 75181, Paris, Cedex 4, France.
Agnes DechartresParis Descartes University, Paris, France.
Romana HaneefParis Descartes University, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, 1, Place du parvis Notre Dame, 75181, Paris, Cedex 4, France. isabelle.boutron@htd.aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational studies are essential for assessing safety. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether results of observational studies evaluating an intervention with safety outcome(s) registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were published and, if not, whether they were available through posting on ClinicalTrials.gov or the sponsor website.

methodsWe identified a cohort of observational studies with safety outcome(s) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov after October 1, 2007, and completed between October 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011. We systematically searched PubMed for a publication, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the sponsor website for results. The main outcomes were the time to the first publication in journals and to the first public availability of the study results (i.e. published or posted on ClinicalTrials.gov or the sponsor website). For all studies with results publicly available, we evaluated the completeness of reporting (i.e. reported with the number of events per arm) of safety outcomes.

resultsWe identified 489 studies; 334 (68%) were partially or completely funded by industry. Results for only 189 (39%, i.e. 65% of the total target number of participants) were published at least 30 months after the study completion. When searching other data sources, we obtained the results for 53% (n = 158; i.e. 93% of the total target number of participants) of unpublished studies; 31% (n = 94) were posted on ClinicalTrials.gov and 21% (n = 64) on the sponsor website. As compared with non-industry-funded studies, industry-funded study results were less likely to be published but not less likely to be publicly available. Of the 242 studies with a primary outcome recorded as a safety issue, all these outcomes were adequately reported in 86% (114/133) when available in a publication, 91% (62/68) when available on ClinicalTrials.gov, and 80% (33/41) when available on the sponsor website.

conclusionsOnly 39% of observational studies evaluating an intervention with safety outcome(s) registered at ClinicalTrials.gov had their results published at least 30 months after study completion. The registration of these observational studies allowed searching other sources (results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and sponsor website) and obtaining results for half of unpublished studies and 93% of the total target number of participants.

Indexed as

Access to InformationBiasClinical Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualHumansInternetObservational Studies as TopicPublicationsPublishingRegistriesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26819213
PMCPMC4730754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.