ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Clinical Trial Quality Assessment in Adult Spinal Surgery: What Do Publication Status, Funding Source, and Result Reporting Tell Us?
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Why clinical trials in disc regeneration strive to achieve completion: Insights from publication status and funding sources.JOR spine · 2024Article
- Response to Letter to the Editor on "Hybrid Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Short-Term Complications, Reoperations, and Readmissions".Global spine journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designNarrative Review.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to compare publication status of clinical trials in adult spine surgery registered on ClinicalTrials.gov by funding source as well as to identify other trends in clinical trials in adult spine surgery.
methodsAll prospective, comparative, therapeutic (intervention-based) trials of adult spinal disease that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with a start date of January 1, 2000 and completion date before December 17, 2018 were included. Primary outcome was publication status of published or unpublished. A bivariate analysis was used to compare publication status to funding source of industry vs non-industry.
resultsOur search identified 107 clinical trials. The most common source of funding was industry (62 trials, 57.9% of total), followed by University funding (26 trials, 24.3%). The results of 76 trials (71.0%) were published, with industry-funded trials less likely to be published compared to non-industry-funded trials (62.9% compared to 82.2%,
conclusionsClinician researchers in adult spine surgery should be aware that industry-funded trials are less likely to go on to publication compared to non-industry-funded trials, and that negative trials are frequently not published. Future opportunities include improvement in result reporting and in publishing negative studies.
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.