Publication and non-publication of clinical trials in PTSD: an overview

Sharain Suliman · Leigh L. van den Heuvel · Alexandra PSP Suryapranata · Jonathan I. Bisson · Soraya Seedat

9 citations0/0 files storedResearch Integrity and Peer Review

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

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

Although a large number of clinical trials on interventions demonstrating efficacy (or lack thereof) are conducted annually, much of this evidence is not accessible to scientists and clinicians. We aimed to determine the publication rate of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) trials that have been registered in clinical trial registries, and the factors associated with publication. Trials, completed on January 15, 2015, were identified via the US National Institutes of Health clinical trials registry, the European Union Clinical Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. A systematic search for publications (published by the end of March 2018) related to each of the registered trials were then performed. Four hundred and thirty-eight of 1982 potentially eligible trials were included. Only 34% of interventional trials were registered prior to initiation, 9% were registered within 2 months of starting and 20% after trial completion. Of the 438 included trials, 72% had generated peer-reviewed publications, while an additional 7% had disseminated results in some other form (such as on the trial database), 26 months after trial completion. Randomisation of a trial was the only factor individually associated with publication, in logistic regression analysis ( p < 0.001). Intervention type, university as sponsor and study registration prior to completion were factors that influenced the time to publication, using Cox regression ( p < 0.001). This study underscores the importance of timely and accurate publication and dissemination of trial results, in order to avoid the potential waste of resources and to ensure research integrity and patient safety. We suggest that authors and journal editors adhere to conditions set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and that more diligent data sharing is encouraged through prospective trial registration and trial reporting websites.

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 — 9 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials 2018Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report.2014Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research 2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2009Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results 1997Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects 2009Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence 2012Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis

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.