ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Barriers and enablers for publishing results of randomized trials: a cross-sectional survey of principal investigators in sub-Saharan Africa.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the views and experiences of principal investigators (PIs) based in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) regarding publication bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and strategies to mitigate it.
designCross-sectional online survey, informed by previous reviews and prior surveys on publication bias. The survey consisted of closed-ended items with Likert scales and optional free text.
settingWe emailed invitations to African-based PIs that we identified through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
participants6056 invitations were sent, 610 opened the survey, 433 were eligible to partake, and 409 consented and proceeded with the survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURED: Awareness and perceived magnitude of publication bias in SSA, experiences of timely publication, non-publication, delayed publication and their perceived effectiveness of mitigating strategies.
resultsAwareness that all RCTs are to be published was 62.7% (227/362). More than 90% agreed that PIs are responsible for ensuring that their RCTs are published (295/323), and 84% (272/323) within 24 months of completion. Publication bias in SSA scored a median of 71/100 (IQR: 50 - 84) for geographical region and 66 (IQR = 40 -79) for the respondent's specific field of research. Of the respondents, 63.1% (219/347) published the findings of at least one RCT within 24 months, and 23.6% (82/347) were unable to publish at least one complete RCT. Notably, 74% (246/332) indicated not having had prior training in writing RCT-specific manuscripts. Of the 82 that were unable to publish, their reported reasons for non-publication included 30.5% (25/82) journal rejection, 29.3% (24/82) time constraints, 14.6% (12/82) non-significant or 13.4% (11/82) non-positive results, 13.4% (11/82) methodological concerns and 12.2% (10/82) lack of confidence in writing. 41.2% (143/347) of respondents reported delays greater than 24 months, 47.9% (69/347) attributed time constraint, 38.9% (56/347) time-consuming analysis, and 36.8% (53/347) journal rejection. Of the 332 participants that answered questions on mitigating strategies, the following were suggested to be very effective: 56.6%(188/332) dedicated writing time, 37.1% (123/332) guidance on writing a manuscript and 35.8% (119/332) peer-review prior to submission. Furthermore, 52.7% (175/332) rated the CONSORT checklist as effective/very effective, and 37.4% (124/332) noted artificial intelligence tools somewhat effective.
conclusionsSSA PIs note that publication bias is a problem, which is a result of barriers such as time constraints, analysis difficulties, journal rejection, and limited writing support. Enablers include mentorship, dedicated writing time, and structured reporting tools.
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.