Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36248143›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2022

Is there resource wastage in the research for spinal diseases? An observational analysis of discontinuation and non-publication in randomised controlled trials.

Andreas K Demetriades, Jay J Park, Jakov Tiefenbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research Waste: Current Situation, Development, and Trends.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Andreas K DemetriadesDepartment of Neurosurgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Jay J ParkEdinburgh Spinal Surgery Outcome Studies Group, United Kingdom.
Jakov TiefenbachEdinburgh Spinal Surgery Outcome Studies Group, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The scale of waste in research funding systems is large and detrimental to research capacity. Both incompleteness and non-publication of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been increasingly reported in the literature. This is a serious consequence as RCTs demand monumental amounts of healthcare resources leading to wastage. Most importantly, both under-reporting and non-publication can distort the evidence landscape and obscure rationale behind clinical decisions. Research question: We, therefore, aimed at conducting the first systematic assessment of registered trial discontinuation and non-publication in the field of spinal disorders. Material and methods: A list of RCTs was obtained from the U.S National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov database from January 1st, 2013, to December 31st, 2020. Two independent authors excluded all non-RCTs, trials unrelated to spinal diseases, and trials that are in or before the recruitment phase. We extracted the progress status, sources of funding, the number of centres, type of intervention, principal investigator's department affiliation, publication status, location, the reason for discontinuation, publication date, and subtopics. Results: 112 trials were included in the study. 25 (22%) trials were discontinued early, with slow recruitment being the major reason (38%). Only 56 (50%) of the trials were published in peer-reviewed journals. The publication rate amongst discontinued trials was significantly lower compared to completed trials ( Discussion and conclusion: Nearly a quarter of all trials in spinal disorders were discontinued. Half of the trials were unpublished. There was over a third of trials that were completed but not published. These rates remain worrisome from an ethical and financial perspective. Both under-reporting and non-publication adversely affect efforts in evidence synthesis and can compromise clinical guideline development.

Indexed as

Randomized controlled trialsResearch wastageSpinal researchTrial discontinuationTrial nonpublication

Identifiers

PMID36248143
PMCPMC9560700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.