ArticleTrials2026
Publication bias and time to the publication of randomised trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdeally, evidence-based decisions about healthcare interventions should be informed by access to up-to-date information from all relevant RCTs, making it essential that the reports are published soon after study completion. However, studies have consistently shown that between 25 and 50% of clinical trials remain unpublished or are only published many years after completion. The WHO has noted a slow but steady increase in the number of RCTs since the mid-2000s, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, the extent of publication bias of SSA RCTs remains unknown. Therefore, our study objectives were to assess (1) the proportion of completed RCTs from SSA that have been published and (2) the time from completion to publication.
methodsThis cross-sectional study, consisting of a retrospective analysis of registered SSA RCTs, aims to report the proportion of completed and terminated SSA RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR) and their time to publication.
resultsOur search yielded 7896 records, of which 3026 RCTs met our inclusion criteria for analysis. We identified journal publications for 1983 (65.5%) RCTs. The overall median time to publication from the primary completion date was 34.2 months (95% CI: 32.4 to 35.5).
conclusionsOverall, we found a substantial proportion (34.5%) of unpublished SSA RCTs. Moreover, the median time to publication from primary completion was 34.2 months. The persistence of publication bias threatens the integrity of evidence-based healthcare practice, particularly given that consumers depend on peer-reviewed journal publications as conventional and trusted sources to stay informed. Our findings underscore the importance of continued research to test and implement preventative strategies to mitigate publication bias.
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.