Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38190185›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Publication of Results of Registered Trials With Published Study Protocols, 2011-2022.

Colby J Vorland, Andrew W Brown, Halil Kilicoglu, Xiangji Ying, Evan Mayo-Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The meta-analysis and systematic review mirage: when data synthesis becomes data distortion.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors.

Colby J VorlandDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington.
Andrew W BrownDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Halil KilicogluSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Xiangji YingDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Evan Mayo-WilsonDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill.

Funding

Computational Methods, Resources, and Tools to Assess Transparency and Rigor of Randomized Clinical TrialsR01LM014079 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI KILICOGLU, HALIL, MAYO-WILSON, EVAN · 2022 to 2025
$1.3M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Publishing study protocols might reduce research waste because of unclear methods or incomplete reporting; on the other hand, there might be few additional benefits of publishing protocols for registered trials that are never completed or published. No study has investigated the proportion of published protocols associated with published results. Objective: To estimate the proportion of published trial protocols for which there are not associated published results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used stratified random sampling to identify registered clinical trials with protocols published between January 2011 and August 2022 and indexed in PubMed Central. Ongoing studies and those within 1 year of the primary completion date on ClinicalTrials.gov were excluded. Published results were sought from August 2022 to March 2023 by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, emailing authors, and using an automated tool, as well as through incidental discovery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a weighted estimate of the proportion of registered trials with published protocols that also had published main results. The proportion of trials with unpublished results was estimated using a weighted mean. Results: From 1500 citations that were screened, 308 clinical trial protocols were included, and it was found that 87 trials had not published their main results. Most included trials were investigator-initiated evaluations of nonregulated products. When published, results appeared a mean (SD) of 3.4 (2.0) years after protocol publications. With the use of a weighted mean, an estimated 4754 (95% CI, 4296-5226) eligible clinical trial protocols were published and indexed in PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022. In the weighted analysis, 1708 of those protocols (36%; 95% CI, 31%-41%) were not associated with publication of main results. In a sensitivity analysis excluding protocols published after 2019, an estimated 25% (95% CI, 20%-30%) of 3670 (95% CI, 3310-4032) protocol publications were not associated with publication of main results. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of clinical trial protocols published on PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022 suggests that many protocols were not associated with subsequent publication of results. The overall benefits of publishing study protocols might outweigh the research waste caused by unnecessary protocol publications.

Indexed as

Clinical Trial Protocols as TopicIncidental FindingsPublishingCross-Sectional StudiesHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID38190185
PMCPMC10774993

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.