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

Положительные результаты влияют на частоту и сроки публикации, но не на импакт-фактор публикаций результатов клинических исследований
Pilar Suñé, Josep María Suñé, José Bruno Montoro Ronsano, J. Bruno Montoro
2013-01-30

clinical trialsjournal impact factorpublication biaspublication ratetime to publication
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
Among completed clinical trials, results were identified for 68.9% (541/785), while the overall publication rate was 48.4% (380/785).
2
Positive-result trials were published sooner, with median times of 2.09 versus 3.21 years for negative-result trials and a hazard ratio of 1.99 (95% CI 1.55–2.55).
3
Publication impact factors did not differ between positive-result studies (median 6.308) and negative-result studies (median 8.266).
4
The findings indicate that positive outcomes influence whether and how quickly clinical trial results are published, but not the impact factor of the publishing journal.
5
Trials with positive results were published significantly more often than trials with negative results: 84.9% versus 68.9% (p<0.001).

Drug-evaluating clinical trials submitted to and approved by a general hospital ethics committee

The influence of clinical trial outcome direction (positive versus negative) on publication rate, time to publication, and journal impact factor

Publication Details
Publication Date
2013-01-30
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Pilar Suñé
Josep María Suñé
José Bruno Montoro Ronsano
J. Bruno Montoro
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%