ArticleTrials2018
Outcomes, Interventions and Funding in Randomised Research Published in High-Impact Journals.
Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Metronomic chemotherapy for paediatric extracranial solid tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- The assessment of suicidality in psychiatric trials: a protocol for a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Regular human insulins versus rapid-acting insulin analogues in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Missing outcome data in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions: a review of published trial reports in major psychiatry journals.BMC psychiatry · 2024Review
- Less focus on symptom scales in psychiatric trials: it is time to ensure research equality between psychiatry and other medical specialities.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Role of central endpoint adjudication and challenges in trials on neonatal sepsis-a case of ProSPoNS trial.Trials · 2024Article
- What Really Matters to Survivors of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection-A Survey of Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Dutch National Aortic Dissection Advocacy Group.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Exercise-induced Laryngeal Obstruction: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Treatment Trial.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomised clinical trials are pivotal in guiding clinical practice. Trials with surrogate outcomes and industry sponsorship might be less reliable than those with hard outcomes and independent sponsorship. The types of interventions evaluated in randomised clinical trials might not reflect the diversity of those employed in clinical practice.
methodsWe assessed the types of primary outcome, types of intervention and sponsorship of 360 randomised clinical trials evaluating 416 interventions, published in seven major general medical journals and 10 speciality medical journals in five clinical disciplines.
resultsPrimary outcomes were surrogate in 223/360 (62%) trials. Neither type of journal nor source of sponsorship was associated with type of primary outcome. Among the interventions evaluated, 233/416 (56%) were drugs, 17/416 (4%) devices and 49/416 (12%) procedures. The majority of trials were non-industry funded (220/360, 61%). Trials of drug interventions and those with industry sponsorship were more common in specialty than general journals (68% vs 48% and 55% vs 25%, respectively). Industry sponsorship was not associated with results for the primary outcome but was strongly associated with trials of drugs and devices. Within the groups of both general and speciality journals, there were wide ranges in the prevalence of industry funding (7-63% and 37-70%, respectively), but in all cases the prevalence of hard primary outcomes was <40%.
conclusionsMost randomised clinical trials published in influential journals reported surrogate primary outcomes and assessed drug interventions. Trials that evaluated devices and procedures were infrequently published, despite the prominence of each type of intervention in clinical practice. Industry funding was more common for trials published in specialty than general journals but was not associated with more positive results for primary outcomes or with a greater preponderance of surrogate outcomes.
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.