Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Cochrane reviews are regarded as being scientifically rigorous and are increasingly used by a variety of stakeholders. However, factors predicting the publication of Cochrane reviews have never been reported. This is important because if a higher proportion of Cochrane protocols with certain characteristics (e.g., funding) are being published, this may lead to inaccurate decisions. We examined the frequency of published and unpublished Cochrane reviews and protocol factors that predict the publication of Cochrane reviews.Retrospective cohort study of Cochrane protocols published in 2000 (Issues 2 to 4) and 2001 (Issue 1). The publication status of these reviews was followed up to Issue 1, 2008 in The Cochrane Library. Survival analysis of the time from protocol publication to the first review publication and protocol factors predicting the time to publication was conducted. There were 411 new Cochrane protocols in the cohort. After excluding 39; 71/372 (19.1%) were unpublished and 301/372 (80.9%) were published as full Cochrane reviews at the time of study analysis (January 2008). The median time to publication was 2.4 years (range: 0.15 to 8.96). Multivariate analyses revealed that shorter time to publication was associated with the review subsequently being updated (hazard ratio, HR: 1.80 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.39 to 2.33 years]) and longer time to publication was associated with the review having two published protocols, indicating changes to the review plan (HR: 0.33 [95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90 years]).Only about 80% Cochrane protocols were published as full reviews after over 8 years of follow-up. The median time to publication was 2.4 years and some reviews took much longer. Strategies to decrease time to publication should be considered, such as streamlining the review process, increased support for authors when protocol amendments occur, and better infrastructure for updating Cochrane reviews

Are manufacturers sharing data as promised?

Over the past two years drug and device manufacturers have been among the most vocal contributors to the discussion about transparency of clinical trial data. In 2013 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) established its Clinical Study Data Request system to share participant level data, and now 11 other companies are listed as contributors to it (www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com). Other companies have developed similar systems of their own,but it is difficult to evaluate how they are working or even to decide on what basis they should be judged

Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND: Failure to be comprehensive can distort the results of a systematic review. Conversely, extensive searches may yield unmanageable number of citations of which only few may be relevant. Knowledge of usefulness of each source of information may help to tailor search strategies in systematic reviews. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prevalence/incidence of maternal mortality and morbidities from 1997 to 2002. The search strategy included electronic databases, hand searching, screening of reference lists, congress abstract books, contacting experts active in the field and web sites from less developed countries. We evaluated the effectiveness of each source of data and discuss limitations and implications for future research on this topic. RESULTS: Electronic databases identified 64098 different citations of which 2093 were included. Additionally 487 citations were included from other sources. MEDLINE had the highest yield identifying about 62% of the included citations. BIOSIS was the most precise with 13.2% of screened citations included. Considering electronic citations alone (2093), almost 20% were identified uniquely by MEDLINE (400), 7.4% uniquely by EMBASE (154), and 5.6% uniquely by LILACS (117). About 60% of the electronic citations included were identified by two or more databases. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the need for extending the search to other sources beyond well-known electronic databases in systematic reviews of maternal mortality and morbidity prevalence/incidence. These include regional databases such as LILACS and other topic specific sources such as hand searching of relevant journals not indexed in electronic databases. Guidelines for search strategies for prevalence/incidence studies need to be developed

Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Public funding is aimed at facilitating the initiation, completion and publication of research study protocols. However, no evaluation is made to investigate the impact of grant success on the conduct of biomedical research. It is therefore of great interest to compare the fate of funded protocols versus not funded: Are they initiated? Are they completed? Did the results confirm the hypothesis? Were they published? The objective was to investigate the fate of protocols submitted for funding, whether they were funded or not. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of protocols submitted for funding to the Greater Lyon regional scientific committee in 1997. Initial characteristics of protocols (design, study size, investigator status) were abstracted from archives, and follow-up characteristics (initiation, completion and publication) from a mailed questionnaire to the principal investigators. RESULTS: Among the 142 submitted protocols, follow-up information was available for 114 (80%). As a whole, 38% of studies were funded by the Greater Lyon research committee. The rate of initiation varied from 62% for studies with no acknowledged funding to 100% for studies with both committee and other simultaneous funding. When initiated, the rate of completion was 62% for studies with at least one funding and 40% for studies without acknowledged funding. When completed, publication was reached for 77% of studies with either committee or external funding, for 58% of studies without acknowledged funding and for 37% of studies with both committee and external funding. CONCLUSION: Some protocols submitted for funding were initiated and completed without any funding declared. To our understanding this mean that not all protocols submitted really needed funding and also that health care facilities are unaware that they implicitly financially support and pay for biomedical research

Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Joseph Ross and colleagues examine publication rates of clinical trials and find low rates of publication even following registration in Clinicaltrials.gov

Publication Delay of Randomized Trials on 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccination

Background: Randomized evidence for vaccine immunogenicity and safety is urgently needed in the setting of pandemics with new emerging infectious agents. We carried out an observational survey to evaluate how many randomized controlled trials testing 2009 H1N1 vaccines were published among those registered, and what was the time lag from their start to publication and from their completion to publication. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and 9 clinical trial registries were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials. The units of the analysis were single randomized trials on any individual receiving influenza vaccines in any setting. Results: 73 eligible trials were identified that had been registered in 2009–2010. By June 30, 2011 only 21 (29%) of these trials had been published, representing 38 % of the randomized sample size (19905 of 52765). Trials starting later were published less rapidly (hazard ratio 0.42 per month; 95 % Confidence Interval: 0.27 to 0.64; p,0.001). Similarly, trials completed later were published less rapidly (hazard ratio 0.43 per month; 95 % CI: 0.27 to 0.67; p,0.001). Randomized controlled trials were completed promptly (median, 5 months from start to completion), but only a minority were subsequently published. Conclusions: Most registered randomized trials on vaccines for the H1N1 pandemic are not published in the peer-reviewe

Searching for observational studies: what does citation tracking add to PubMed? A case study in depression and coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND: PubMed is the most widely used method for searches of the medical literature, but fails to identify many relevant articles. Electronic citation tracking offers an alternative search method. METHODS: Articles investigating the role of depression in the aetiology and prognosis of coronary heart disease were sought through two methods: a) PubMed, and b) citation tracking where Science Citation Index was searched for all articles which cited ("forward citation tracking") or were cited by ("backward citation tracking") any of the articles in an index review. The number and quality of eligible articles identified by the two methods were compared. RESULTS: 50 articles that were not already included in the index review met our inclusion criteria; 11 were identified through Science Citation Index alone, 8 through PubMed alone, and 31 through both methods. Articles identified by Science Citation Index alone were published in higher impact factor journals, were larger and were less likely to show a positive association. CONCLUSION: Science Citation Index identified more eligible articles than PubMed, and these differed qualitatively. Failing to use citation tracking in a systematic review of observational studies may result in bias

Trial Registration for Public Trust: Making the Case for Medical Devices

Recently, several pharmaceutical companies have been shown to have withheld negative clinical trial results from the public. These incidents have resulted in a concerted global effort to register all trials at inception, so that all subsequent results can be tracked regardless of whether they are positive or negative. These trial registration policies have been driven in large part by concern about the pharmaceutical sector. The medical device industry is much smaller, and different from the pharmaceutical industry in some fundamental ways. This paper examines the issues surrounding registration of device trials and argues that these differences with pharmaceutical should not exempt device trials from registration

Likely country of origin in publications on randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials during the last 60 years

BACKGROUND: The number of publications on clinical trials is unknown as well as the countries publishing most trial reports. To try to examine these questions we performed an ecological study. METHODS: We searched the 454,449 records on publications in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005 (CD-ROM version) for possible country of origin. We inspected a random sample of 906 records for information on country and type of trial. RESULTS: There was an exponential growth of publications on randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials since 1946, but the growth seems to have seized since 2000. We identified the possible country of origin of 210,974 publications (46.4%). The USA is leading with about 46,789 publications followed by UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, and France. Sweden becomes the leader with 891 publications per million inhabitants during the last 60 years followed by Denmark (n = 864), New Zealand (n = 791), Finland (n = 781), the Netherlands (n = 570), Switzerland (n = 547), and Norway (n = 543). In depth assessment of the random sample backed these findings. CONCLUSION: Many records lacked country of origin, even after the additional scrutiny. The number of publications on clinical trials increased exponentially until the turn of the century. Rather small, democratic, and wealthy countries take the lead when the number of publications on clinical trials is calculated based on million inhabitants. If all countries produced the same number of trials as these countries, this could mean thousands of new effective treatments during the next 60 years