Publishing Clinical Trial Results: The Future Beckons

Elizabeth Wager

19 citations0/0 files storedPLoS Clinical Trials

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Publishing and Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Communication Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

Search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man; its publication is a duty.-Madame de Stael (1766Stael ( -1817) ) Formats for reporting results from randomized clinical trials in peer-reviewed journals have remained virtually unchanged and unchallenged for the past 50 years [1].However, a number of developments, some technological and some political, provide exciting opportunities to question whether we are using the most efficient and effective methods of publication.Here, I suggest how methods of reporting clinical trials could be improved and consider the implications for trial sponsors and medical journals. Why Do We Publish Clinical Trial Results?Publication (and non-publication) of trial results can be motivated by several factors.Research reports may affect clinical practice, inform patients, influence future research, and prevent duplication of effort.Many believe there is a moral obligation to report results of all trials that involve patients [2].Publication also has important secondary effects.These may explain existing patterns of publication and resistance to change-despite evidence that current systems are not the best.Authorship of papers in journals can establish reputations and enhance career prospects.Institutional or corporate reputations may also benefit.The productivity of academic departments is judged on their publication output, which also affects their chances of obtaining future funding.The peer-reviewed (and indexed) journal has thus become part of the process of academic appointments and promotions, which, in turn, has spawned the discipline of bibliometrics [3].And, of course, there are financial interests: drug companies use publications to increase sales while publishers make money both directly from journal sales and from spin-offs such as reprints and advertising [4].

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

References

2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research 1990The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence 1999Journal impact factor: a brief review.1997Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study 2005Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors 1997When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable

Cited by

2020Results dissemination of registered clinical trials across Polish academic institutions: a cross-sectional analysis 2016Do declarative titles affect readers’ perceptions of research findings? A randomized trial

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.