SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024
Time to publication for results of clinical trials.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Toward inclusive healthy ageing: a systematic review of equity in healthy ageing interventions.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- Nonregistration, Discontinuation, and Nonpublication of Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- PXT3003: Lessons for therapeutic development in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A and related neuropathies.iScience · 2026Review
- An international patient survey of RYR1-related diseases: The patient perspective on clinical trial participation.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- The insufficient publication of early-phase clinical trials in oncology.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Repurposing of colchicine: critical examination of clinical trials and scoping review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Preferences for rapid implementation science: a real-time discrete choice experiment.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Barriers and enablers for publishing results of randomized trials: a cross-sectional survey of principal investigators in sub-Saharan Africa.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Article
- Current Practices and a Novel Operational Framework for Planning Research on Digital Health Promotion Interventions From Development to Implementation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Review
- Observational
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- Immunogenicity Publication Bias and Its Consequences for Predictive Models: A Call for Transparent Reporting.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Research waste in total knee arthroplasty studies: an observational study on registered trials.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Characteristics and research waste of immunotherapy randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- The Outcome and Impact of Academic Cancer Clinical Trials with Participation from Canadian Sites (2015-2024).Cancers · 2025Article
- The role of research ethics committees in addressing optimism in sample size calculations: a meta-epidemiological study.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Experimental Warming Does Not Change Fluctuating Asymmetry in Three Willow Species.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Interventional clinical trials registered per million population per country worldwide.Trials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearchers conducting trials have a responsibility to publish the results of their work in a peer-reviewed journal, and failure to do so may introduce bias that affects the accuracy of available evidence. Moreover, failure to publish results constitutes research waste.
objectivesTo systematically review research reports that followed clinical trials from their inception and their investigated publication rates and time to publication. We also aimed to assess whether certain factors influenced publication and time to publication. SEARCH
methodsWe identified studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) and the database of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), from inception to 23 August 2023. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials and contained analyses of any aspect of the publication rate or time to publication of these trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors performed data extraction independently. We extracted data on the prevalence of publication and the time from the trial start date or completion date to publication. We also extracted data from the clinical trials included in the research reports, including country of the study's first author, area of health care, means by which the publication status of these trials were sought and the risk of bias in the trials. MAIN
resultsA total of 204 research reports tracking 165,135 trials met the inclusion criteria. Just over half (53%) of these trials were published in full. The median time to publication was approximately 4.8 years from the enrolment of the first trial participant and 2.1 years from the trial completion date. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant results favouring the experimental arm) were more likely to be published than those with negative or null results (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.60; 19 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.45; 4 studies). On average, trials with positive results took 2 years to publish, whereas trials with negative or null results took 2.6 years. Large trials were more likely to be published than smaller ones (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.77; 11 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.68; 7 studies). Multicentre trials were more likely to be published than single-centre trials (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40; 2 studies). We found no difference between multicentre and single-centre trials in time to publication. Trials funded by non-industry sources (e.g.governments or universities) were more likely to be published than trials funded by industry (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or for-profit organisations) (adjusted OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.49; 14 studies); they were also published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.86; 7 studies). AUTHORS'
conclusionsOur updated review shows that trial publication is poor, with only half of all trials that are conducted being published. Factors that may make publication more likely and lead to faster publication are positive results, large sample size and being funded by non-industry sources. Differences in publication rates result in publication bias and time-lag bias that may influence findings and therefore ultimately affect treatment decisions. Systematic review authors should consider the possibility of time-lag bias when conducting a systematic review, especially when updating their review.
fundingThis Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: This review combines and updates two earlier Cochrane reviews. The two protocols and previous versions of the two updated reviews are available via 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2.
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.