Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Response to Miller et al on clinical trial transparency

    The article by Miller et al. published on 12th November (1) took a similar approach to previous studies by Rawal and Deane (2, 3) that also set out to examine the clinical trial evidence related to recently approved medicines. The article therefore requires some qualification; while the study examines some of the industry-sponsored clinical trials related to 15 selected new medicines approved by the FDA in 2012, their st...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Miller J et al, November 12th Publication

    In the November 12th issue the BMJ published a paper (Miller, J., et al) on "Clinical Trial Registration, Reporting, Publication and Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) Compliance of Drugs Approved by FDA in 2012".

    In the paper the authors conclude that for Stribild, a drug for the treatment of HIV infection developed and marketed by Gilead Sciences, Inc., only 9% of clinical trials submitted to...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Transparency grade reflects only one aspect of transparency

    Imagine a drug company conducting 10 trials, 5 of which turn out positive and 5 negative. The 5 positive trials are, unsurprisingly, published. The 5 negative trials are subjected to outcome reporting bias, aka statistical alchemy and HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known), so that they appear to be positive in the final publications. The downstream reader (or even systematic reviewer) is misled into believi...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.