Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646100›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2018

Age of Data at the Time of Publication of Contemporary Clinical Trials.

John Welsh, Yuan Lu, Sanket S Dhruva, Behnood Bikdeli, Nihar R Desai, Liliya Benchetrit, Chloe O Zimmerman, Lin Mu, Joseph S Ross, Harlan M Krumholz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Publishing Relevant Health Research.Acta medica Philippina · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Physician-Patient Communication about Novel Drugs and High-Risk Medical Devices.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. REPRESENTATION AND EXTRAPOLATION: EVIDENCE FROM CLINICAL TRIALSThe quarterly journal of economics · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Playing remotely in times of crisis: A program to overcome social isolation.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Disseminating trial results: We can have both faster and better.Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

John WelshCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
Yuan LuCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
Sanket S DhruvaNational Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Behnood BikdeliCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
Nihar R DesaiCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
Liliya BenchetritDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Chloe O ZimmermanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Lin MuDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Joseph S RossCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
Harlan M KrumholzCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASET32HL007854 · NHLBI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Marwah Abdalla, Michael Argenziano · 1996 to 2026
$14.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007854
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: As medical knowledge and clinical practice rapidly evolve over time, there is an imperative to publish results of clinical trials in a timely way and reduce unnecessary delays. Objectives: To characterize the age of clinical trial data at the time of publication in journals with a high impact factor and highlight the time from final data collection to publication. Design and Setting: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of all randomized clinical trials published from January 1 through December 31, 2015, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess whether data age (adjusted for follow-up duration) and publication time were associated with trial characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome measures were the midpoint of data collection until publication (data age), the time from first participant enrollment to last participant enrollment (enrollment time), and the time from final data collection to publication (publication time). Results: There were 341 clinical trials published in 2015 by the 6 journals. For assessment of the primary end point, 37 trials (10.9%) had a follow-up period of less than 1 month, 172 trials (50.4%) had a follow-up period of 1 month to 1 year, and 132 trials (38.7%) had a follow-up period of more than 1 year. For all trials, the median data age at publication was 33.9 months (interquartile range, 23.5-46.3 months). Among trials with a follow-up period of 1 month or less, the median data age was 30.6 months (interquartile range, 18.6-39.0 months). A total of 68 trials (19.9%) required more than 4 years to complete enrollment. The median time from the completion of data collection to publication was 14.8 months (interquartile range, 7.4-22.2 months); publication time was 2 or more years in 63 trials (18.5%). In multivariable regression analyses adjusted for follow-up time, inconclusive or unfavorable trial results were significantly associated with older data age (>235 days). Compared with trials funded only by private industry, trials funded by government were associated with a significantly longer time to publication (>180 days). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical trials in journals with a high impact factor were published with a median data age of nearly 3 years. For a substantial proportion of studies, time for enrollment and time from completion of data collection to publication were quite long, indicating marked opportunities for improvement in clinical trials to reduce data age.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesJournal Impact FactorPublishingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID30646100
PMCPMC6324269

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.