Are results from pharmaceutical-company-sponsored studies available to the public?

PurposeOnly 53% and 63% of studies and clinical trials results presented at congresses are published. Company-sponsored trial results are being posted on publicly accessible Web sites. We analyzed the public availability (publication or posting on a Web site) rate, time to publication, and factors predicting public availability of results of studies sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study analyzing all studies conducted by GlaxoSmithKline in Spain between 2001 and 2006. Initiation and completion were defined as first participant/first visit and last participant/last visit (or their equivalents). Papers published up to 31 March 2009 were considered. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors predicting public availability of results.ResultsThe cohort comprised 143 studies (94 clinical trials; of these, 87 were included in international products clinical development plans). Public availability rate was 80% (114/143) for all studies and 78% (73/94) for clinical trials; publication rates were 68% and 61%, respectively. The median time to publication for all studies and trials was 27.3 and 28.4 months, respectively. Study associated to a cancelled project was the only significant factor associated with lower publication rate for all studies [odds ratio (OR) 0.069; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02–024; p < 0.001) and trials (OR 0.075; 95% CI 0.016–0.343; p = 0.001) and a lower public availability rate (OR 0.052; 95% CI 0.007–0.382; p = 0.004) for trial results. Therapy area, sample size, positive trial results, duration of experimental phase, and being a clinical trial did not predict publication or public availability.ConclusionsEighty percent of studies included in this analysis are publicly available. Web site posting increases public availability rate of clinical trial results from 61% to 78%. Cancellation of projects is the single factor negatively influencing publication and public availability rates.

[1]  Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results , 2003, The Lancet.

[2]  Jenine K. Harris,et al.  The influence of industry sponsorship on the acceptance of abstracts and their publication. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  F. Rockhold,et al.  Public disclosure of clinical research , 2009, The Lancet.

[4]  I. Sim,et al.  Reporting the findings of clinical trials: a discussion paper. , 2008, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[5]  F. Rockhold,et al.  Reasons for optimism not disillusionment , 2006, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[6]  K. Dickersin.  The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. , 1990, JAMA.

[7]  An-Wen Chan,et al.  Bias, Spin, and Misreporting: Time for Full Access to Trial Protocols and Results , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[8]  C. Meinert,et al.  Presentation in relation to publication of results from clinical trials. , 2007, Contemporary clinical trials.

[9]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[10]  D. Moher.  Reporting research results: A moral obligation for all researchers , 2007, Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie.

[11]  G. Antes,et al.  Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[12]  E. von Elm,et al.  Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  Ida Sim,et al.  Publication of Clinical Trials Supporting Successful New Drug Applications: A Literature Analysis , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[14]  Alastair J J Wood,et al.  Progress and deficiencies in the registration of clinical trials. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  François Chapuis,et al.  Inadequate Dissemination of Phase I Trials: A Retrospective Cohort Study , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[16]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[17]  Dimitri A Christakis,et al.  Does presentation format at the Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meeting predict subsequent publication? , 2003, Pediatrics.

[18]  L. Stewart,et al.  Time to publication for results of clinical trials. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[19]  Ian F Tannock,et al.  Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. , 2003, JAMA.

[20]  B. Beermann,et al.  Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[22]  D. Sanders,et al.  Research outcomes in British gastroenterology: an audit of the subsequent full publication of abstracts presented at the British Society of Gastroenterology. , 2000, Gut.

[23]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[24]  R. Wears,et al.  Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. , 1998, JAMA.

[25]  E. von Elm,et al.  Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. , 2008, Swiss medical weekly.

[26]  Jeffrey L Saver,et al.  Frequency and Determinants of Nonpublication of Research in the Stroke Literature , 2006, Stroke.

[27]  B. Gandevia,et al.  DECLARATION OF HELSINKI. , 1964, The Medical journal of Australia.

[28]  E. Decullier,et al.  Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  Jpe Karlberg.  Industry clinical testing of new medicinal products requires 95,000 study sites and 1,300,000 subjects annually. , 2008 .

[30]  D. Moher,et al.  Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. , 2002, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[31]  S. Eckstein.  Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2001, European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine.

[32]  David Moher,et al.  Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study , 2008, PloS one.

[33]  X. Vidal,et al.  Fate of the abstracts presented at three Spanish clinical pharmacology congresses and reasons for unpublished research , 2007, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[34]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[35]  Robert M Califf,et al.  Publication or presentation of results from multicenter clinical trials: evidence from an academic medical center. , 2007, American heart journal.

[36]  R. Simes,et al.  Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects , 1997, BMJ.

[37]  J. Ioannidis.  Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. , 1998, JAMA.

[38]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Publication bias in clinical research , 1991, The Lancet.

[39]  A. Webber,et al.  Publication bias in the medical literature: A review by a Canadian research ethics board , 2007, Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie.