ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology1998
Bias in reporting clinical trials.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 7 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2009Pooled it
- Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.PloS one · 2008Pooled it
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016-2018: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors' role in avoiding it.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- What is open peer review? A systematic review.F1000Research · 2017Article
- Barriers towards the publication of academic drug trials. Follow-up of trials approved by the Danish Medicines Agency.PloS one · 2017Article
- Non-Publication Is Common among Phase 1, Single-Center, Not Prospectively Registered, or Early Terminated Clinical Drug Trials.PloS one · 2016Article
- Occurrence and determinants of selective reporting of clinical drug trials: design of an inception cohort study.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Article
- Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Article
- Review
- Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis.PLoS medicine · 2009Article
- Gap in publication of comparative information on new medicines.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2008Review
- Research ethics committees: agents of research policy?Health research policy and systems · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe primary aim of the present study was to identify possible occurrence of selective reporting of the results of clinical trials to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. Selective reporting may lead to poorly informed action or inaction by regulatory authorities.
methodsIn 1987, 274 clinical drug trials were notified to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. By December 1993, final reports had been received from 68 of these trials and statements that the trial had been suspended from 24 trials. The sponsors of the non-reported trials were requested to report the outcome. The outcomes, if any, of all reported and non-reported trials were classified as positive, inconclusive or negative.
resultsThe total number of trials with positive, inconclusive or negative outcome were 111, 33 and 44, respectively; the outcomes of 86 trials could not be assessed. Final reports were received from 42/111 (38%) trials with positive, 6/33 (18%) with inconclusive and 9/44 (20%) with negative outcomes.
conclusionsSubstantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authority than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes.
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.