ArticleThe oncologist2025
Barriers to publishing early phase clinical trials: the oncologists' perspective.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. 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.
- Expansion cohorts in phase 1 oncology trials: a systematic review of their design, implementation and outcomes.British journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- The insufficient publication of early-phase clinical trials in oncology.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Early phase trials: the perils of nonpublication.The oncologist · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFindings from early phase studies are not always placed in the public domain. This study aims to explore why many early phase clinical oncology studies are not published, as well as identify the potential barriers investigators encountered in the publication process.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted among investigators with experience in early phase clinical oncology studies. Interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsTwenty-one investigators were interviewed. The majority worked in Europe (n = 13), while other investigators were based in North America (n = 4), Asia (n = 2) or Oceania (n = 2). We identified three reasons why investigators believed publishing early phase clinical trial results was important: (1) there is an ethical and moral responsibility; (2) there should be no loss of knowledge to society; and (3) there should be no waste of resources. Four main barriers in the publication process of early phase clinical trials were identified: (1) practical barriers (eg, an increased complexity of number of trials/trial sites), (2) insufficient resources (eg, money, time and human), (3) limited motivation (eg, limited intrinsic motivation of the investigator or limited prospect of return for the sponsor), and (4) inadequate collaboration (eg, different interests between industry partners and investigators). Finally, five major stakeholders were identified that can potentially contribute to improving the publication process: (1) journal editors, (2) sponsors, (3) investigators, (4) regulatory bodies, and (5) society. Investigator suggestions for improving this process, for each stakeholder, are presented.
conclusionsThis study highlights the barriers experienced in publishing early phase clinical trials. Recognizing and acknowledging these barriers is crucial to devise effective strategies to improve the publishing and public sharing of early phase clinical trials.
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.