Positive Outcomes Influence the Rate and Time to Publication, but Not the Impact Factor of Publications of Clinical Trial Results

Objectives Publication bias may affect the validity of evidence based medical decisions. The aim of this study is to assess whether research outcomes affect the dissemination of clinical trial findings, in terms of rate, time to publication, and impact factor of journal publications. Methods and Findings All drug-evaluating clinical trials submitted to and approved by a general hospital ethics committee between 1997 and 2004 were prospectively followed to analyze their fate and publication. Published articles were identified by searching Pubmed and other electronic databases. Clinical study final reports submitted to the ethics committee, final reports synopses available online and meeting abstracts were also considered as sources of study results. Study outcomes were classified as positive (when statistical significance favoring experimental drug was achieved), negative (when no statistical significance was achieved or it favored control drug) and descriptive (for non-controlled studies). Time to publication was defined as time from study closure to publication. A survival analysis was performed using a Cox regression model to analyze time to publication. Journal impact factors of identified publications were recorded. Publication rate was 48·4% (380/785). Study results were identified for 68·9% of all completed clinical trials (541/785). Publication rate was 84·9% (180/212) for studies with results classified as positive and 68·9% (128/186) for studies with results classified as negative (p<0·001). Median time to publication was 2·09 years (IC95 1·61–2·56) for studies with results classified as positive and 3·21 years (IC95 2·69–3·70) for studies with results classified as negative (hazard ratio 1·99 (IC95 1·55–2·55). No differences were found in publication impact factor between positive (median 6·308, interquartile range: 3·141–28·409) and negative result studies (median 8·266, interquartile range: 4·135–17·157). Conclusions Clinical trials with positive outcomes have significantly higher rates and shorter times to publication than those with negative results. However, no differences have been found in terms of impact factor.

[1]  R. Simes.  Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[3]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. , 1992, JAMA.

[4]  K. Dickersin,et al.  NIH clinical trials and publication bias. , 1993, The Online journal of current clinical trials.

[5]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

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

[7]  R. Wears,et al.  Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. , 1998, JAMA.

[8]  A R Jadad,et al.  The randomized controlled trial gets a middle-aged checkup. , 1998, JAMA.

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

[10]  D. Rennie,et al.  Publication bias in editorial decision making. , 2002, JAMA.

[11]  S. Hahn,et al.  Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. , 2002, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[12]  D. Christakis,et al.  Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? , 2003, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[13]  I. Leviton,et al.  Registering clinical trials. , 2003, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

[14]  A. Walker,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting in randomised controlled trials. , 2004, Journal of wound care.

[15]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.

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

[17]  Ida Sim,et al.  Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1) , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  F. Mimouni,et al.  Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology. , 2005, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[19]  John Hoey,et al.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. , 2005, Circulation.

[20]  J. Holroyd-Leduc,et al.  Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

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

[22]  F. Wolf,et al.  Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[23]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  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.

[25]  M. Bhandari,et al.  Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

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

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

[28]  N. Penel,et al.  Publication biases and phase II trials investigating anticancer targeted therapies , 2009, Investigational New Drugs.

[29]  David Moher,et al.  Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. , 2009, JAMA.

[30]  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.

[31]  F. Song,et al.  Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. , 2010, Health technology assessment.

[32]  H. Kölsch,et al.  Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review , 2010, Trials.

[33]  G. Rücker,et al.  Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.