ArticlePloS one2017
Barriers towards the publication of academic drug trials. Follow-up of trials approved by the Danish Medicines Agency.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Trends and variation in data quality and availability on the European Union Clinical Trials Register: A cross-sectional study.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT).BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- A multi-state model analysis of the time from ethical approval to publication of clinical research studies.PloS one · 2020Article
- Publish or Perish v2.The oncologist · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize and quantify barriers towards the publication of academic drug trials. STUDY
designWe identified academic drug trials approved during a 3-year period (2004-2007) by the Danish Medicines Agency. We conducted a survey among the trial sponsors to describe the rates of initiation, completion, and publication, and the reasons for the failure to reach each of these milestones. Information on size and methodological characteristics of the trials was extracted from the EudraCT database, a prospective register of all approved clinical drug trials submitted to European medicines agencies since 2004.
resultsA total of 181 academic drug trials were eligible for inclusion, 139 of which participated in our survey (response rate: 77%). Follow-up time ranged from 5.1 to 7.9 years. Most trials were randomized controlled trials (73%, 95% CI 65-81%). Initiation and completion rates were 92% (95% CI: 88-97%) and 93% (95% CI: 89-97%) respectively. The publication rate of completed trials was 73% (95% CI: 62-79%). RCTs were published faster than non-RCTs (quartile time to publication 2.9 vs. 3.1 years, p = 0.0412).
conclusionsMany academic drug trials are left unpublished. Main barriers towards publication were related to the process from completion to publication. Hence, there is much to gain by facilitating the process from analysis to publication. Research institutions and funders should actively influence this process, e.g. by requiring the publication of trial results within a given time after completion.
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.