ArticleBMJ open2020
Results dissemination of registered clinical trials across Polish academic institutions: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Towards monitoring of global health research: an exploratory analysis of transparency and stakeholder engagement.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Seamless trials in oncology: A cross-sectional analysis of characteristics and reporting.PloS one · 2024Article
- Availability of results of clinical trials registered on EU Clinical Trials Register: cross sectional audit study.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- Ethical challenges of clinical trials with a repurposed drug in outbreaks.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Rates of discontinuation and non-publication of upper and lower extremity fracture clinical trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Repurposed agents in the Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish the rates of publication and reporting of results for interventional clinical trials across Polish academic medical centres (AMCs) completed between 2009 and 2013. We aim also to compare the publication and reporting success between adult and paediatric trials.
designCross-sectional study.
settingAMCs in Poland.
participantsAMCs with interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.
main outcome measureResults reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publishing via journal publication.
resultsWe identified 305 interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, completed between 2009 and 2013 and affiliated with at least one AMC. Overall, 243 of the 305 trials (79.7%) had been published as articles or posted their summary results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Results were posted within a year of study completion and/or published within 2 years of study completion for 131 trials (43.0%). Dissemination by both posting and publishing results in a timely manner was achieved by four trials (1.3%).
conclusionsOur cross-sectional analysis revealed that Polish AMCs fail to meet the expectation for timely disseminating the findings of all interventional clinical trials. Delayed dissemination and non-dissemination of trial results negatively affects decisions in healthcare.
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.