Abstract
Purpose
Only 53% and 63% of studies and clinical trials results presented at congresses are published. Company-sponsored trial results are being posted on publicly accessible Web sites. We analyzed the public availability (publication or posting on a Web site) rate, time to publication, and factors predicting public availability of results of studies sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.
Methods
This was a retrospective cohort study analyzing all studies conducted by GlaxoSmithKline in Spain between 2001 and 2006. Initiation and completion were defined as first participant/first visit and last participant/last visit (or their equivalents). Papers published up to 31 March 2009 were considered. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors predicting public availability of results.
Results
The cohort comprised 143 studies (94 clinical trials; of these, 87 were included in international products clinical development plans). Public availability rate was 80% (114/143) for all studies and 78% (73/94) for clinical trials; publication rates were 68% and 61%, respectively. The median time to publication for all studies and trials was 27.3 and 28.4 months, respectively. Study associated to a cancelled project was the only significant factor associated with lower publication rate for all studies [odds ratio (OR) 0.069; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02–024; p < 0.001) and trials (OR 0.075; 95% CI 0.016–0.343; p = 0.001) and a lower public availability rate (OR 0.052; 95% CI 0.007–0.382; p = 0.004) for trial results. Therapy area, sample size, positive trial results, duration of experimental phase, and being a clinical trial did not predict publication or public availability.
Conclusions
Eighty percent of studies included in this analysis are publicly available. Web site posting increases public availability rate of clinical trial results from 61% to 78%. Cancellation of projects is the single factor negatively influencing publication and public availability rates.
Abbreviations
- REC:
-
Research Ethics Committee
- GSK:
-
GlaxoSmithKline
- CSR:
-
Clinical study register
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
References
Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W et al (2008) Systematic Review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3(8):e3081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337:867–872
Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263:1385–1389
Stern JM, Simes RJ (1997) Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315:640–645
Ioannidis JP (1998) Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 279:281–286
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber E, Barton C, Young G (1998) Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 280:254–257
Krzyzanowska M, Pintilie M, Tannock IF (2003) Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 290:495–501
Decullier E, Lheritier V, Chapuis F (2005) Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 331(7507):19, Epub 2005 Jun 20
Scherer RW, Lengenberg P, von Elm E (2007) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 2, Art No: MR000005. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3
Lee K, Bacchetti P, Sim I (2008) Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis. PLoS Med 5(9):e191. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050191
Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L (2008) Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: a review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 5(11):e217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217
Klassen TP, Wiebe N, Russell K, Stevens K, Hartling L et al (2002) Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric reaserach meeting. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 156:474–479
Hall R, Antueno C, Webber A (2007) Publication bias in the medical literature: a review by a Canadian research ethics board. Can J Anesth 54:331–335
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 2007. www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/HR3580.pdf (accessed January 7th, 2009)
Sanossian N, Ohanian AG, Saver JL, Kim LI, Ovbiagele B (2006) Frequency and determinants of nonpublication of research in the stroke literature. Stroke 37:2588–2592
Montané E, Vidal X (2007) Fate of the abstracts presented at three Spanish clinical pharmacology congresses and reasons for unpublished research. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63:103–111
Sanders DS, Carter MJ, Hurlstone DP, Lobo AJ, Hoggard N (2001) Research outcomes in British gastroenterology: an audit of the subsequent full publication of abstracts presented at the British Society of Gastroenterology. Gut 49:154–155
Carroll AE, Sox CM, Tarini BA, Ringold S, Christakis DA (2003) Does presentation format at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting predict subsequent publication? Pediatrics 112:1238–1241
Pich J, Carne X, Arnaiz JA, Gomez B, Trilla A et al (2003) Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publications of results. Lancet 361:1015–1016
Turer A, Mahaffey KW, Compton KL, Califf RM, Schulman KA (2007) Publication or presentation of results from multicenter clinical trials: evidence from an academic medical centre. Am Heart J 153:674–680
Blümle A, Antes G, Schumacher M, Just H, von Elm E (2008) Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others. J Med Ethics Sep 34(9):e20
Von Elm E, Röllin A, Blümle A, Huwiler K, Witschi M et al (2008) Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Swiss Med Wkly 138:197–203
Melander H, Ahlquist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B (2003) Evidence b(i)ased medicine_ selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 326:1171–1173
McLennan M, Leong FC, Steele A, Harris J (2008) The influence of industry sponsorship on the acceptance of abstracts and their publication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(579):e1-579–e1-4
Decullier E, Chan AW, Chapuis F (2009) Inadequate dissemination of phase I trials: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS Med 6(2):e1000034. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000034
Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM (2009) Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 6(9):e1000144. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000144
Krall RL, Rockhold F (2006) Reasons for optimism not disillusionment. J Roy Soc Med 99:435
Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K (2009) Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trials results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 21(1):MR000006
Tricco AC, Brehaut J, Chen MH, Moher D (2008) Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 3(11):e3684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003684
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4(3):e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
Ünalp A, Tonascia S, Meinert CL (2007) Presentation in relation to publication of results from clinical trials. Contem Clin Trials 28:358–369
Chan A-W (2008) Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLoS Med 5(11):e230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050230
Hopewell S, ClarkeMJ, Stewart L, Tierney J (2007) Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000011. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2
Wood AJJ (2009) Progress and deficiencies in the registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med 360:824–830
Ghersi D, Clarke M, Berlin J, Gülmezoglu AM, Kush T et al (2008) Reporting the findings of clinical trials: a discussion paper. Bull WHO 86:492–493
World Medical Association (2008) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, October. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm (accessed May, 3rd, 2009)
Strahlman E, Rockhold F, Freeman A (2009) Public disclosure of research. Lancet 373:1319–1320
Karlberg JPE (2008) Industry clinical testing of new medicinal products requires 95000 study sites and 1300000 subjects annually. Clinical Trial Magnifier 1: 101-19 ( www.ClinicalTrialMagnifier.com)
Acknowledgements
We thank Dolores Asenjo, Teresa Compañy, Arturo Fueyo, Pilar García Corbeira, José Emilio Martín, Elena Morejón, Felipe Rodríguez-Alcántara, and Josefa Samper for data collection, and Pilar Vicente for providing the impact factor of all manuscripts. We also thank Drs. A. Benbow (London, UK) and X. Carne (Barcelona, Spain) for their critical reading and suggestions on the manuscript.
Financial disclosure
This study required no funding.
Competing interests
At the time of conducting the analysis all authors were GlaxoSmithKline SA employees and own stock in GSK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00228-011-1044-1
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dal-Ré, R., Pedromingo, A., García-Losa, M. et al. Are results from pharmaceutical-company-sponsored studies available to the public?. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 66, 1081–1089 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-010-0898-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-010-0898-y