Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28765131›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Discontinuation and non-publication of randomised clinical trials supported by the main public funding body in Switzerland: a retrospective cohort study.

Alain Amstutz, Stefan Schandelmaier, Roy Frei, Jakub Surina, Arnav Agarwal, Kelechi Kalu Olu, Reem Alturki, Belinda Von Niederhäusern, Erik Von Elm, Matthias Briel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Alain AmstutzDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Stefan SchandelmaierDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8429-0337
Roy FreiDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jakub SurinaDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Arnav AgarwalDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0931-7851
Kelechi Kalu OluDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Reem AlturkiDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Belinda Von NiederhäusernClinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Erik Von ElmCochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Matthias BrielDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) promotes academic excellence through competitive selection of study proposals and rigorous evaluation of feasibility, but completion status and publication history of SNSF-supported randomised clinical trials (RCTs) remain unclear. The main objectives were to review all healthcare RCTs supported by the SNSF for trial discontinuation and non-publication, to investigate potential risk factors for trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment and non-publication, and to compare findings to other Swiss RCTs not supported by the SNSF.

designWe established a retrospective cohort of all SNSF-supported RCTs for which recruitment and funding had ended in 2015 or earlier. For each RCT, two investigators independently searched corresponding publications in electronic databases. In addition, we approached all principal investigators to ask for additional publications and information about trial discontinuation. Teams of two investigators independently extracted details about study design, recruitment of participants, outcomes, analysis and sample size from the original proposal and, if available, from trial registries and publications. We used multivariable regression analysis to explore potential risk factors associated with discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with non-publication, and to compare our results with data from a previous cohort of Swiss RCTs not supported by the SNSF.

resultsWe included 101 RCTs supported by the SNSF between 1986 and 2015. Eighty-seven (86%) principal investigators responded to our survey. Overall, 69 (68%) RCTs were completed, 26 (26%) RCTs were prematurely discontinued (all due to slow recruitment) and the completion status remained unclear for 6 (6%) RCTs. For analysing publication status, we excluded 4 RCTs for which follow-up was still ongoing and 9 for which manuscripts were still in preparation. Of the remaining 88 RCTs, 53 (60%) were published as full articles in peer-reviewed journals. Multivariable regression models suggested that discontinued trials were at higher risk for non-publication than completed trials (adjusted OR 7.61; 95% CI 2.44 to 27.09). Compared with other Swiss RCTs, the risk of discontinuation for SNSF-supported RCTs was higher than in industry-initiated RCTs (adjusted OR 3.84; 95% CI 1.68 to 8.74), but not significantly different from investigator-initiated RCTs not supported by the SNSF (adjusted OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.11). We found no evidence that the proportion of discontinued or unpublished RCTs decreased over the last 20 years.

conclusionsOne out of four SNSF-supported RCTs were prematurely discontinued due to slow recruitment, 40% of all included RCTs and 70% of all discontinued RCTs were not published in peer-reviewed journals. There is a case to reconsider how public funding bodies such as the SNSF could improve their feasibility assessment and promote publication of RCTs irrespective of completion status.

Indexed as

Financing, GovernmentPublishingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcademies and InstitutesHumansPatient SelectionResearch PersonnelRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSwitzerlandearly termination of clinical trialsnon-publicationrandomized controlled trialswiss national science foundation

Identifiers

PMID28765131
PMCPMC5642669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.