Two prognostic indicators of the publication rate of clinical studies were available during ethical review

被引:10
作者
de Jong, Jean Philippe [1 ]
Ter Riet, Gerben [1 ]
Willems, Dick Ludolf [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Div Clin Methods & Publ Hlth, Acad Med Ctr, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
The Netherlands; Survival analysis; Research ethics committees; Clinical protocols; Publishing; Follow-up studies; FOLLOW-UP; BIAS; TRIALS; COMMITTEE; DISSEMINATION; COHORT; FATE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.018
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To identify prognostic indicators of the publication rate of clinical studies, available to research ethics committees (RECs) during review. Study Design and Setting: Retrospective survival study of a random sample of 100 studies, approved by a Dutch academic REC, with follow-up information by questionnaire and bibliographic searches. Multivariate Cox regression analysis of the association between publication rate and seven factors available during review: six study characteristics and the number of letters sent by the committee during review representing the length of the review process. Results: Two factors were associated with publication rate: studies with possible therapeutic benefit to participants were less likely to be published than nontherapeutic studies (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.54); with every letter sent, publication was less likely (AHR: 0.46 per letter; 95% CI: 0.17-0.98). Possibly, studies with more-than-minimal burdens to participants were more likely to be published than studies with minimal burdens (AHR: 3.90, 95% CI: 1.03-16.64). Conclusion: We identified two prognostic indicators of publication rate. After suitable replication, RECs might explore using prognostic indicators, such as these, to target study protocols at high risk for nonpublication. Discussing the risk of nonpublication with investigators could help prevent nonpublication. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1342 / 1350
页数:9
相关论文
共 23 条
[11]  
EASTERBROOK PJ, 1992, J ROY SOC MED, V85, P71
[12]  
Hall R, 2007, CAN J ANAESTH, V54, P380, DOI 10.1007/BF03022661
[13]   Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results [J].
Mann, H .
LANCET, 2002, 360 (9330) :406-408
[14]   Dissemination of results needs to be tracked as well as the funding is [J].
McCormack, J ;
Loewen, P ;
Jewesson, P .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7514) :456-456
[15]   PUBLICATION - AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE [J].
PEARN, J .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 310 (6990) :1313-1315
[16]   Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results [J].
Pich, J ;
Carné, X ;
Arnaiz, JA ;
Gómez, B ;
Trilla, A ;
Rodés, J .
LANCET, 2003, 361 (9362) :1015-1016
[17]   Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Same suggestions for improving performance and accountability [J].
Savulescu, J ;
Chalmers, I ;
Blunt, J .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 313 (7069) :1390-1393
[18]   Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects [J].
Stern, JM ;
Simes, RJ .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7109) :640-645
[19]  
Sugarman Jeremy, 1998, IRB, V20, P1, DOI 10.2307/3564262
[20]  
Suñe-Martin P, 2003, LANCET, V361, P2245, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13751-8