临床试验结果的公布时间。

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3
Marian G Showell, Sammy Cole, Mike J Clarke, Nicholas J DeVito, Cindy Farquhar, Vanessa Jordan
{"title":"临床试验结果的公布时间。","authors":"Marian G Showell, Sammy Cole, Mike J Clarke, Nicholas J DeVito, Cindy Farquhar, Vanessa Jordan","doi":"10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers conducting trials have a responsibility to publish the results of their work in a peer-reviewed journal, and failure to do so may introduce bias that affects the accuracy of available evidence. Moreover, failure to publish results constitutes research waste.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically review research reports that followed clinical trials from their inception and their investigated publication rates and time to publication. We also aimed to assess whether certain factors influenced publication and time to publication.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We identified studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) and the database of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), from inception to 23 August 2023. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional studies.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Studies were eligible if they tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials and contained analyses of any aspect of the publication rate or time to publication of these trials.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors performed data extraction independently. We extracted data on the prevalence of publication and the time from the trial start date or completion date to publication. We also extracted data from the clinical trials included in the research reports, including country of the study's first author, area of health care, means by which the publication status of these trials were sought and the risk of bias in the trials.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of 204 research reports tracking 165,135 trials met the inclusion criteria. Just over half (53%) of these trials were published in full. The median time to publication was approximately 4.8 years from the enrolment of the first trial participant and 2.1 years from the trial completion date. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant results favouring the experimental arm) were more likely to be published than those with negative or null results (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.60; 19 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.45; 4 studies). On average, trials with positive results took 2 years to publish, whereas trials with negative or null results took 2.6 years. Large trials were more likely to be published than smaller ones (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.77; 11 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.68; 7 studies). Multicentre trials were more likely to be published than single-centre trials (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40; 2 studies). We found no difference between multicentre and single-centre trials in time to publication. Trials funded by non-industry sources (e.g.governments or universities) were more likely to be published than trials funded by industry (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or for-profit organisations) (adjusted OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.49; 14 studies); they were also published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.86; 7 studies).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Our updated review shows that trial publication is poor, with only half of all trials that are conducted being published. Factors that may make publication more likely and lead to faster publication are positive results, large sample size and being funded by non-industry sources. Differences in publication rates result in publication bias and time-lag bias that may influence findings and therefore ultimately affect treatment decisions. Systematic review authors should consider the possibility of time-lag bias when conducting a systematic review, especially when updating their review.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This review combines and updates two earlier Cochrane reviews. The two protocols and previous versions of the two updated reviews are available via 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"11 ","pages":"MR000011"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600493/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time to publication for results of clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Marian G Showell, Sammy Cole, Mike J Clarke, Nicholas J DeVito, Cindy Farquhar, Vanessa Jordan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers conducting trials have a responsibility to publish the results of their work in a peer-reviewed journal, and failure to do so may introduce bias that affects the accuracy of available evidence. Moreover, failure to publish results constitutes research waste.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically review research reports that followed clinical trials from their inception and their investigated publication rates and time to publication. We also aimed to assess whether certain factors influenced publication and time to publication.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We identified studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) and the database of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), from inception to 23 August 2023. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional studies.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Studies were eligible if they tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials and contained analyses of any aspect of the publication rate or time to publication of these trials.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors performed data extraction independently. We extracted data on the prevalence of publication and the time from the trial start date or completion date to publication. We also extracted data from the clinical trials included in the research reports, including country of the study's first author, area of health care, means by which the publication status of these trials were sought and the risk of bias in the trials.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of 204 research reports tracking 165,135 trials met the inclusion criteria. Just over half (53%) of these trials were published in full. The median time to publication was approximately 4.8 years from the enrolment of the first trial participant and 2.1 years from the trial completion date. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant results favouring the experimental arm) were more likely to be published than those with negative or null results (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.60; 19 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.45; 4 studies). On average, trials with positive results took 2 years to publish, whereas trials with negative or null results took 2.6 years. Large trials were more likely to be published than smaller ones (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.77; 11 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.68; 7 studies). Multicentre trials were more likely to be published than single-centre trials (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40; 2 studies). We found no difference between multicentre and single-centre trials in time to publication. Trials funded by non-industry sources (e.g.governments or universities) were more likely to be published than trials funded by industry (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or for-profit organisations) (adjusted OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.49; 14 studies); they were also published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.86; 7 studies).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Our updated review shows that trial publication is poor, with only half of all trials that are conducted being published. Factors that may make publication more likely and lead to faster publication are positive results, large sample size and being funded by non-industry sources. Differences in publication rates result in publication bias and time-lag bias that may influence findings and therefore ultimately affect treatment decisions. Systematic review authors should consider the possibility of time-lag bias when conducting a systematic review, especially when updating their review.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>This review combines and updates two earlier Cochrane reviews. The two protocols and previous versions of the two updated reviews are available via 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"MR000011\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600493/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:进行试验的研究人员有责任在同行评审的期刊上发表他们的工作成果,不这样做可能会带来偏见,影响现有证据的准确性。此外,不发表结果也是一种研究浪费:系统回顾从临床试验开始就对其进行跟踪的研究报告,并调查其发表率和发表时间。我们还旨在评估某些因素是否会影响发表率和发表时间:我们通过检索MEDLINE、Embase、Epistemonikos、Cochrane方法学登记册(CMR)以及美国医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)的数据库,确定了从开始到2023年8月23日的研究。我们还检查了相关研究的参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的专家以了解其他研究:如果研究追踪了一组临床试验的发表情况,并包含对这些试验的发表率或发表时间的任何方面的分析,则符合条件:两位综述作者独立进行数据提取。我们提取的数据包括发表率以及从试验开始日期或完成日期到发表的时间。我们还提取了研究报告中包含的临床试验数据,包括研究第一作者所在国家、医疗保健领域、这些试验的发表情况查询方式以及试验的偏倚风险:符合纳入标准的研究报告共有 204 份,涉及 165 135 项试验。其中一半多一点(53%)的试验发表了全文。发表时间的中位数约为 4.8 年(从第一位试验参与者注册开始)和 2.1 年(从试验完成日期开始)。与结果为阴性或无效的试验相比,结果为阳性(即统计意义上的结果有利于试验组)的试验更容易发表(OR 2.69,95% CI 2.02 至 3.60;19 项研究),而且发表时间更短(调整后 HR 1.92,95% CI 1.51 至 2.45;4 项研究)。结果为阳性的试验平均需要2年才能发表,而结果为阴性或无效的试验则需要2.6年。大型试验比小型试验更容易发表(调整后OR值为1.92,95% CI为1.33至2.77;11项研究),而且发表时间更短(调整后HR值为1.41,95% CI为1.18至1.68;7项研究)。多中心试验比单中心试验更有可能发表(调整后OR为1.20,95% CI为1.03至1.40;2项研究)。我们发现多中心试验与单中心试验在发表时间上没有差异。由非行业来源(如政府或大学)资助的试验比由行业(如制药公司或营利性组织)资助的试验更容易发表(调整后OR为2.13,95% CI为1.82至2.49;14项研究);发表时间也更短(调整后HR为1.46,95% CI为1.15至1.86;7项研究):我们的最新综述显示,试验发表情况不佳,仅有一半的试验得以发表。积极的结果、大样本量以及由非行业来源资助等因素可能使试验更有可能发表并加快发表速度。发表率的差异会导致发表偏差和时滞偏差,这可能会影响研究结果,从而最终影响治疗决策。系统综述作者在进行系统综述时,尤其是在更新综述时,应考虑时滞偏差的可能性:本 Cochrane 综述没有专项资金:本综述合并并更新了两篇早期的 Cochrane 综述。两份协议和两份更新综述的先前版本可通过 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 和 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 以及 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 和 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2 获取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Time to publication for results of clinical trials.

Background: Researchers conducting trials have a responsibility to publish the results of their work in a peer-reviewed journal, and failure to do so may introduce bias that affects the accuracy of available evidence. Moreover, failure to publish results constitutes research waste.

Objectives: To systematically review research reports that followed clinical trials from their inception and their investigated publication rates and time to publication. We also aimed to assess whether certain factors influenced publication and time to publication.

Search methods: We identified studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) and the database of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), from inception to 23 August 2023. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional studies.

Selection criteria: Studies were eligible if they tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials and contained analyses of any aspect of the publication rate or time to publication of these trials.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors performed data extraction independently. We extracted data on the prevalence of publication and the time from the trial start date or completion date to publication. We also extracted data from the clinical trials included in the research reports, including country of the study's first author, area of health care, means by which the publication status of these trials were sought and the risk of bias in the trials.

Main results: A total of 204 research reports tracking 165,135 trials met the inclusion criteria. Just over half (53%) of these trials were published in full. The median time to publication was approximately 4.8 years from the enrolment of the first trial participant and 2.1 years from the trial completion date. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant results favouring the experimental arm) were more likely to be published than those with negative or null results (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.60; 19 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.45; 4 studies). On average, trials with positive results took 2 years to publish, whereas trials with negative or null results took 2.6 years. Large trials were more likely to be published than smaller ones (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.77; 11 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.68; 7 studies). Multicentre trials were more likely to be published than single-centre trials (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40; 2 studies). We found no difference between multicentre and single-centre trials in time to publication. Trials funded by non-industry sources (e.g.governments or universities) were more likely to be published than trials funded by industry (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or for-profit organisations) (adjusted OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.49; 14 studies); they were also published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.86; 7 studies).

Authors' conclusions: Our updated review shows that trial publication is poor, with only half of all trials that are conducted being published. Factors that may make publication more likely and lead to faster publication are positive results, large sample size and being funded by non-industry sources. Differences in publication rates result in publication bias and time-lag bias that may influence findings and therefore ultimately affect treatment decisions. Systematic review authors should consider the possibility of time-lag bias when conducting a systematic review, especially when updating their review.

Funding: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Registration: This review combines and updates two earlier Cochrane reviews. The two protocols and previous versions of the two updated reviews are available via 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
期刊最新文献
Angioplasty or stenting for deep venous thrombosis. Carbon dioxide detection for diagnosis of inadvertent respiratory tract placement of enterogastric tubes in children. Breastfeeding interventions for preventing postpartum depression. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes. Interventions for myopia control in children: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1