ReviewJAMA oncology2018
Delays in the Publication of Important Clinical Trial Findings in Oncology.
Review in JAMA oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Press Releases of Drug-Related Randomized Trial Results Prior to Publication in High-Impact Journals: an Observational Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Genetic factors associated with reasons for clinical trial stoppage.Nature genetics · 2024Article
- Transparency of Results Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Data Dissemination of the Role of Neoadjuvant Radiation in Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: A CTOS and CSSO Survey.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Availability of Results of Trials Studying Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma over the Past 10 Years.The oncologist · 2022Article
- Article
- [Risk of Publication Bias in Therapeutic Interventions for COVID-19Risco de viés de publicação em intervenções terapêuticas para a COVID-19].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2021Article
- Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Optimizing Postoperative Opioid Prescribing Through Quality-Based Reimbursement.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Publish or Perish v2.The oncologist · 2019Article
- Estimation of Study Time Reduction Using Surrogate End Points Rather Than Overall Survival in Oncology Clinical Trials.JAMA internal medicine · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The complete and timely dissemination of clinical trial data is essential to all fields of medicine, with delayed or incomplete data release having potentially deleterious effects on both patient care and scientific inquiry. While prior analyses have noted a substantial lag in the reporting of final clinical study results, we sought to refine these observations through use of a novel starting point for the measurement of dissemination delays: the date of a corporate press release regarding a phase 3 study's results. Objective: To measure the length of time elapsed between when a sponsor had results of study findings they deemed important to announce, and when the medical community had access to them. Design and Setting: Covering the years 2011 through 2016, we measured the delay from when 8 large pharmaceutical companies issued a press release announcing completed analyses of phase 3 clinical trials in oncology, and the public sharing of those results either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal as found via PubMed or Google Scholar. Press releases announcing regulatory steps and presentation schedules for conferences were excluded, as were those announcing results from preclinical trials, follow-up analyses, and studies of supportive care therapies or various modes of infusion for the same therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to public dissemination of clinical trial data. Results: Of the 100 press releases in our sample, 70 (70%) reported positive results, but only 31 (31%) included the magnitude of study findings. Through the end of follow-up, 99 (99%) of press releases had an associated peer-reviewed publication, complete data posting to ClinicalTrials.gov, or both, with a median time to reporting of 300 days (95% CI, 263-348 days). Positive findings were reported more quickly than negative ones (median of 272; 95% CI, 211-318 days vs 407; 95% CI, 298-705 days; log-rank P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Even for the most pressing study findings, median publication delays approach 1 year. As publication delays hinder research progress and advancements in clinical care, policies that enable early preprint release or public posting of completed data analysis should be pursued.
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.