Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme. Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the primary treatment of brain tumors. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. Secular changes in the quality of published randomized clinical trials in rheumatology. Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility. Discrepancy between results and abstract conclusions in industry- vs nonindustry-funded studies comparing topical prostaglandins. Bias in reporting clinical trials. Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research. Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias.
Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions.
                To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events.
                Observational study of 370 randomized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews selected from the Cochrane Library, May 2001. From a random sample of 167 Cochrane reviews, 25 contained eligible meta-analyses (assessed a binary outcome; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment). The primary binary outcome from each meta-analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta-analysis. The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect, adverse events, and additional confounding factors (methodological quality, control intervention, sample size, publication year, and place of publication).
                Conclusions in trials, classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not.
                The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16% of trials funded by nonprofit organizations, 30% of trials not reporting funding, 35% of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and 51% of trials funded by for-profit organizations (P<.001; chi2 test). Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding, treatment effect, and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions. Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-14.4) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations. This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events.
                Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data. Substantial numbers of clinical trials continue to be reported only in summary reports that present insufficient methodological details to permit informed judgments about the likely validity of the conclusions. Using a cohort of 176 controlled trials reported in summary form, we tested the hypotheses that they would be more likely to be followed by full reports if, on the basis of the information provided in the summary report, (1) the trial was judged to be methodologically sound, (2) the results favored the test treatment, and (3) the sample size was relatively large. The results of univariate and multivariate analyses provided support for only the third of these hypotheses. Investigators, as well as those who fund and sanction the conduct of clinical research, should make greater efforts to ensure that clinical trials are reported properly. Few attempts have been made to estimate the public return on investment in medical research. The total costs and benefits to society of a clinical trial, the final step in testing an intervention, can be estimated by evaluating the effect of trial results on medical care and health.
                All phase III randomised trials funded by the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke before Jan 1, 2000, were included. Pertinent publications on use, cost to society, and health effects for each studied intervention were identified by systematic review, supplemented with data from other public and proprietary sources. Regardless of whether a trial was positive or negative, information on use of tested therapies was integrated with published per-use data on costs and health effect (converted to 2004 US dollars) to generate 10-year projections for the US population.
                28 trials with a total cost of 335 million dollars were included. Six trials (21%) resulted in measurable improvements in health, and four (14%) resulted in cost savings to society. At 10 years, the programme of trials resulted in an estimated additional 470,000 quality-adjusted life years at a total cost of 3.6 billion dollars (including costs of all trials and additional health-care and other expenditures). Valuing a quality-adjusted life year at per-head gross domestic product, the projected net benefit to society at 10-years was 15.2 billion dollars. 95% CIs did not include a net loss at 10 years.
                For this institute, the public return on investment in clinical trials has been substantial. Although results led to increases in health-care expenditures, health gains were large and valuable. Because of recent concerns about conflicts of interest and published research, the author analyzed 107 controlled clinical trials. Studies were classified as favoring either a new therapy or a traditional therapy, and as being supported by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or as being generally supported. Seventy-one per cent of the trials favored new therapies; 43% of these were funded by pharmaceutical firms. Of the 31 trials favoring traditional therapy, only four (13%) were supported by a pharmaceutical firm. There was a statistically significant association between the source of funding and the outcome of the study (p = 0.002). Few trials supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers favored traditional therapy; some reasons for this finding may include selection of drugs likely to be proven efficacious, Type II errors (false-negative studies), and fear of discontinuation of funding should such studies be submitted. Important clinical information may be lost if negative studies are not published. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials (a Bayesian interpretation for accumulating evidence) will profoundly affect medical care by summarizing evidence in the assessment of technology innovations. Application of the technique to the randomized control trials (RCTs) of streptokinase treatment of acute myocardial infarction, reduction of peri-operative mortality by antibiotic prophylaxis, and prevention of death from bleeding peptic ulcers has revealed efficacy years before it was suspected by any other means. Arrangement of the trials according to event rate in the controls, effect sizes, quality of the trials or according to covariables of interest has supplied unique information. If carried out prospectively the technique supplies invaluable information regarding indications for another trial, the number of patients necessary to determine the validity of past trends, and the type of patients who might be benefitted. Careful examination in a cumulative manner of the prior trials can reduce the need for future large trials. In conducting reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy, the assessment of trials can be hampered by problems in reporting. Therefore, we set out to evaluate trial reporting by using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommendations.
                Randomized, controlled trials published in 1990 or later were identified in literature searches for reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy. Two independent reviewers evaluated the trial reporting by using a modified 33-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist.
                We identified 15 randomized, controlled trials. Almost half (48%) of the applicable items were reported adequately. Inadequate reporting was found in the following items: outcome measures, sample-size determination, details of the sequence generation, allocation concealment and implementation of the randomization, success of assessor blinding, recruitment and follow-up dates, intention-to-treat analysis, precision of the effect size, co-interventions, and adverse events.
                Only a small number of sufficiently reported trials were found. Because nearly all items had been described in at least 1 article, high-quality reporting seems feasible. Assessment of trials depends on appropriate reporting, and poor reporting jeopardizes judgments on the clinical implications. Authors of randomized, controlled trials are encouraged to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting of trials in this field. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent. Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.
                To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.
                Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.
                Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.
                One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.
                The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion. We analysed 113 reports published in 1980 in a sample of medical journals to relate features of study design to the magnitude of gains attributed to new therapies over old. Overall we rated 87 per cent of new therapies as improvements over standard therapies. The mean gain (measured by the Mann-Whitney statistic) was relatively constant across study designs, except for non-randomized controlled trials with sequential assignment to therapy, which showed a significantly higher likelihood that a patient would do better on the innovation than on standard therapy (p = 0.004). Randomized controlled trials that did not use a double-blind design had a higher likelihood of showing a gain for the innovation than did double-blind trials (p = 0.02). Any evaluation of an innovation may include both bias and the true efficacy of the new therapy, therefore we may consider making adjustments for the average bias associated with a study design. When interpreting an evaluation of a new therapy, readers should consider the impact of the following average adjustments to the Mann-Whitney statistic: for trials with non-random sequential assignment a decrease of 0.15, for non-double-blind randomized controlled trials a decrease of 0.11. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was introduced in 1996 to improve reporting of RCTs. We aimed to determine the extent of ambiguity and reporting quality as assessed by adherence to the CONSORT statement in published reports of RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma from 1966 through 2002.
                We analyzed 242 published full-text reports of RCTs in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 14-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT checklist. Reporting was studied in two pre-CONSORT periods (1966-1988 and 1989-1995) and one post-CONSORT period (1996-2002).
                Only six of the 14 items were addressed in 75% or more of the studies in all three time periods. Most items that are necessary to assess the methodologic quality of a study were reported by fewer than 20% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for some items, including the description of statistics methods used, reporting of primary research outcomes, performance of power calculations, method of randomization and concealment allocation, and having performed intention-to-treat analysis.
                Despite recent improvements, reporting levels of CONSORT items in RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma remain unsatisfactory. Further concerted action by journal editors, learned societies, and medical schools is necessary to make authors even more aware of the need to improve the reporting RCTs in medical journals to allow assessment of validity of published clinical research. Large clinical trials are the criterion standard for making treatment decisions, and nonpublication of the results of such trials can lead to bias in the literature and contribute to inappropriate medical decisions.
                To determine the rate of full publication of large randomized trials presented at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), quantify bias against publishing nonsignificant results, and identify factors associated with time to publication.
                Survey of 510 abstracts from large (sample size, > or =200), phase 3, randomized controlled trials presented at ASCO meetings between 1989 and 1998. Trial results were classified as significant (P< or =.05 for the primary outcome measure) or nonsignificant (P>.05 or not reported), and the type of presentation and sponsorship were identified. Subsequent full publication was identified using a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, completed November 1, 2001; the search was updated in November 2002, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Authors were contacted if the searches did not find evidence of publication.
                Publication rate at 5 years; time from presentation to full publication.
                Of 510 randomized trials, 26% were not published in full within 5 years after presentation at the meeting. Eighty-one percent of the studies with significant results had been published by this time compared with 68% of the studies with nonsignificant results (P<.001). Studies with oral or plenary presentation were published sooner than those not presented (P =.002), and studies with pharmaceutical sponsorship were published sooner than studies with cooperative group sponsorship or studies for which sponsorship was not specified (P =.02). These factors remained significant in a multivariable model. The most frequent reason cited by authors for not publishing was lack of time, funds, or other resources.
                A substantial number of large phase 3 trials presented at an international oncology meeting remain unpublished 5 years after presentation. Bias against publishing nonsignificant results is a problem even for large randomized trials. Nonpublication breaks the contract that investigators make with trial participants, funding agencies, and ethics boards. Previous research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios.
                Data on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial's primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic's analysis of NCI trials.
                Data from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61% of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19% statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials.
                The pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio. Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials. To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the primary treatment of brain tumors and to identify significant predictors of quality.
                Two investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and bibliographies of retrieved articles for RCTs in the primary treatment of brain tumors published between January 1990 and December 2004. We assessed the quality of overall reporting and key methodologic factors reporting (allocation concealment, blinding, and intention to treat [ITT]). Two investigators also rated articles independently using items from the revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A generalized estimated equation was used to generate regression models that identified significant factors associated with quality of reporting.
                We retrieved 74 relevant RCTs that randomly assigned 14,498 brain tumor patients. The quality of overall reporting has improved during the last 15 years, but eight of the 15 methodologic items were reported in less than 50% of trials. In the appraisal of the reporting quality of key methodologies, allocation concealment, blinding, and adherence to the ITT principle were reported in less than 30% of articles. Multivariable regression models revealed that an impact factor more than 1.66, publication after 1995, and sample size more than 280 were significant factors associated with better overall reporting, whereas complete industrial funding, impact factors more than 2.64, and positive primary outcomes were predictors of higher ratings of the three most important methodologic qualities.
                Despite improvement in general reporting quality, key methodologies that safeguard against biases may still benefit from better description. Significant factors associated with better reporting may act as surrogates for other characteristics. We investigated the influence of indicators of methodological quality on study outcome in a set of 89 placebo-controlled clinical trials of homoeopathy in three different ways: (1) The results of studies meeting single criteria (explicit statement of random allocation, allocation concealment, double-blinding, completeness of follow-up) of methodological quality were compared with those of studies not meeting the criteria in univariate and multivariate analyses; (2) The results of studies scoring above and below predefined scores in two quality assessment scales were compared; (3) Primary studies were consecutively entered into a cumulative meta-analysis according to the summary scores derived from the quality assessment scales. All analyses were performed using meta-regression methods. Studies that were explicitly randomized and were double-blind as well as studies scoring above the cut-points yielded significantly less positive results than studies not meeting the criteria. In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. Because summarizing disparate study features into a single score is problematic, meta-regression methods simultaneously investigating the influence of single study features seem the best method for investigating the impact of study quality on outcome. There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research.
                In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.
                Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p=.461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome.
                It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE. To assess the quality of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in rheumatology and to determine whether there has been improvement in quality between 2 time periods, 1987-1988 and 1997-1998.
                Using MEDLINE and a hand search of selected rheumatology journals, we identified RCTs of adult rheumatic diseases published in English in 1987-1988 or 1997-1998. We examined trial quality with an expanded version of the Jadad scale, which assesses the adequacy of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis. All trials were read by 1 reviewer, with prior standardization using a random sample read by 2 reviewers. We also evaluated "high"- versus "low"-impact journals based on citation index.
                Two hundred forty RCTs (1987-1988 119 RCTs, 1997-1998 121 RCTs) were assessed. Results showed improvement in the quality of the trials, but the rates of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, power, and intent-to-treat analyses were persistently low. Low rates of reports of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and intent-to-treat analyses were present even in the high-impact journals.
                There has been improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs in rheumatology between 1987-1988 and 1997-1998. However, methodologic problems such as lack of allocation concealment, inadequate random sequence generation, lack of reporting of power, and lack of intent-to-treat analyses remain common. Many of these problems are established sources of bias in RCTs and are easily rectifiable. The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subfertility and their suitability for inclusion in meta-analyses have been assessed in the past and found to be insufficient. Our aim was to assess whether this quality has improved over time, particularly since the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, and to assess what proportion of trials could be included in the meta-analyses of pregnancy outcomes such as those included in Cochrane Reviews.
                A selection of subfertility trials published in 1990, 1996 and 2002 was collected from the Cochrane Menstrual Disorder and Subfertility Group (MDSG) database. Only trials published in English as full journal articles, claiming to be randomized and reporting on pregnancy outcomes, were included.
                One hundred and sixty-four trials met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (15%) were found not to be randomized, despite claims, and only 10 trials (6%) provided adequate details on the methods of randomization and allocation concealment. Of these, only three had sufficient details extractable to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis of the outcome 'live birth'.
                Although an improvement in some subfertility-specific issues was observed, the quality of reporting of RCTs still needs to improve to make them suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses such as those in the Cochrane Library. To investigate the relationship between industry- vs nonindustry-funded publications comparing the efficacy of topical prostaglandin analogs by evaluating the correspondence between the statistical significance of the publication's main outcome measure and its abstract conclusions.
                Retrospective, observational cohort study.
                English publications comparing the ocular hypotensive efficacy between any or all of latanoprost, travoprost, and bimatoprost were searched from the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed by three independent observers and was evaluated for source of funding, study quality, statistically significant main outcome measure, correspondence between results of main outcome measure and abstract conclusion, number of intraocular pressure outcomes compared, and journal impact factor. Funding was determined by published disclosure or, in cases of no documented disclosure, the corresponding author was contacted directly to confirm industry funding. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The main outcome measure was correspondence between abstract conclusion and reported statistical significance of the publications' main outcome measure.
                Thirty-nine publications were included, of which 29 were industry funded and 10 were nonindustry funded. The published abstract conclusion was not consistent with the results of the main outcome measure in 18 (62%) of 29 of the industry-funded studies compared with zero (0%) of 10 of the nonindustry-funded studies (P = .0006). Twenty-six (90%) of the industry-funded studies had proindustry abstract conclusions.
                Twenty-four percent of the industry-funded publications had a statistically significant main outcome measure; however, 90% of the industry-funded studies had proindustry abstract conclusions. Both readers and reviewers should scrutinize publications carefully to ensure that data support the authors' conclusions. The primary aim of the present study was to identify possible occurrence of selective reporting of the results of clinical trials to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. Selective reporting may lead to poorly informed action or inaction by regulatory authorities.
                In 1987, 274 clinical drug trials were notified to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. By December 1993, final reports had been received from 68 of these trials and statements that the trial had been suspended from 24 trials. The sponsors of the non-reported trials were requested to report the outcome. The outcomes, if any, of all reported and non-reported trials were classified as positive, inconclusive or negative.
                The total number of trials with positive, inconclusive or negative outcome were 111, 33 and 44, respectively; the outcomes of 86 trials could not be assessed. Final reports were received from 42/111 (38%) trials with positive, 6/33 (18%) with inconclusive and 9/44 (20%) with negative outcomes.
                Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authority than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes. The evaluation of research output, such as estimation of the proportion of treatment successes, is of ethical, scientific, and public importance but has rarely been evaluated systematically. We assessed how often experimental cancer treatments that undergo testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) result in discovery of successful new interventions.
                We extracted data from all completed (published and unpublished) phase 3 RCTs conducted by the National Cancer Institute cooperative groups since their inception in 1955. Therapeutic successes were determined by (1) assessing the proportion of statistically significant trials favoring new or standard treatments, (2) determining the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior to standard treatments according to the original researchers, and (3) quantitatively synthesizing data for main clinical outcomes (overall and event-free survival).
                Data from 624 trials (781 randomized comparisons) involving 216 451 patients were analyzed. In all, 30% of trials had statistically significant results, of which new interventions were superior to established treatments in 80% of trials. The original researchers judged that the risk-benefit profile favored new treatments in 41% of comparisons (316 of 766). Hazard ratios for overall and event-free survival, available for 614 comparisons, were 0.95 (99% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98) and 0.90 (99% CI, 0.87- 0.93), respectively, slightly favoring new treatments. Breakthrough interventions were discovered in 15% of trials.
                Approximately 25% to 50% of new cancer treatments that reach the stage of assessment in RCTs will prove successful. The pattern of successes has become more stable over time. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the ethical principle of equipoise defines limits of discoverability in clinical research and ultimately drives therapeutic advances in clinical medicine. Few meta-analyses of randomised trials assess the quality of the studies included. Yet there is increasing evidence that trial quality can affect estimates of intervention efficacy. We investigated whether different methods of quality assessment provide different estimates of intervention efficacy evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
                We randomly selected 11 meta-analyses that involved 127 RCTs on the efficacy of interventions used for circulatory and digestive diseases, mental health, and pregnancy and childbirth. We replicated all the meta-analyses using published data from the primary studies. The quality of reporting of all 127 clinical trials was assessed by means of component and scale approaches. To explore the effects of quality on the quantitative results, we examined the effects of different methods of incorporating quality scores (sensitivity analysis and quality weights) on the results of the meta-analyses.
                The quality of trials was low. Masked assessments provided significantly higher scores than unmasked assessments (mean 2.74 [SD 1.10] vs 2.55 [1.20]). Low-quality trials (score < or = 2), compared with high-quality trials (score > 2), were associated with an increased estimate of benefit of 34% (ratio of odds ratios [ROR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]). Trials that used inadequate allocation concealment, compared with those that used adequate methods, were also associated with an increased estimate of benefit (37%; ROR=0.63 [0.45-0.88]). The average treatment benefit was 39% (odds ratio [OR] 0.61 [0.57-0.65]) for all trials, 52% (OR 0.48 [0.43-0.54]) for low-quality trials, and 29% (OR 0.71 [0.65-0.77]) for high-quality trials. Use of all the trial scores as quality weights reduced the effects to 35% (OR 0.65 [0.59-0.71]) and resulted in the least statistical heterogeneity.
                Studies of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality. Recent years have seen an increase in industry sponsorship of clinical trials throughout medicine. We conducted a study to evaluate the association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal (GI) clinical research. Our aims were (1) to evaluate the trends in the source of funding for GI clinical research during the period from 1992 to 2002-2003, (2) to determine whether the source of study funding predicted the likelihood that a study would publish results that favor the drug or device being tested, and (3) to determine whether differences exist in the methodologic quality of the investigational study methods used in studies funded by private industry versus other sources.
                We selected all clinical studies evaluating a drug or device from 4 prominent GI journals (Gastroenterology, The American Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy). All studies were abstracted by using a standardized data abstraction form. We evaluated the trends in funding source for studies published during the years 1992, 2002, and 2003. All selected studies were scored for methodologic quality by using a previously validated scoring system. The percentage of studies that reported outcomes that favored the device or drug being tested against the standard therapy or placebo was determined for each funding source. A funnel plot was constructed to assess for the presence of negative publication bias.
                A total of 6326 studies were reviewed. For the 1992 trend data, 1860 studies were reviewed, and 135 were selected for inclusion in the study. Ninety-five studies were studies involving the investigation of drugs, and 40 studies involved the testing of a device. For the 2002-2003 data 4466 studies were reviewed, and 315 were selected for inclusion in the study. Two hundred twenty-two studies were clinical trials involving the investigation of drugs, and 93 were clinical trials involving devices. In comparing 1992 to 2002, the percentage of studies funded by industry sources more than doubled from 10% to greater than 28% of the total studies assessed. There was an associated decline in the proportion of studies with funding from non-industry sources during this period (62% to less than 48%). The percentage of studies that did not disclose a funding source fell modestly from 28% to 24%. We found that 86% of studies funded by private industry reported a result favorable to the study drug or device, and 83% of studies funded by academic sources reported a result favorable to the study drug or device (P=.572). On average, studies funded by private industry had a higher methodology score than studies funded by traditional academic sources (75 of 100 vs 65 of 100; P=.005). Analysis of the funnel plot did not reveal evidence of bias against the publication of small studies with insignificant results.
                The proportion of research funded by industry has more than doubled during the last decade and currently comprises almost half of the funding for GI clinical research. Industry-sponsored studies are, on average, of superior methodologic quality to studies funded by other sources. Industry-sponsored studies in leading GI journals were no more likely than other studies to publish results that favored the study sponsor, although an extremely high percentage of all studies in these journals reported positive results. There has been only a modest decline in studies not acknowledging a funding source. Electronic searches on databases for randomised clinical trials and controlled clinical trials do not identify as many trials as handsearches, and trial reporting may be flawed. The aims were to identify all fully reported randomised clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology and to make a qualitative assessment of the reporting.
                The publications were identified by systematically handsearching the full text of the journal and searching MEDLINE. Central dimensions of trial quality were used to assess the reporting quality of the trials.
                Randomised clinical trials represented 8.4% of the original articles (171/2028). Ten original articles (0.5%) could not be classified. A search on MEDLINE identified 81.3% of the randomised clinical trials, i.e., 139 out of the 171 identified by the handsearch. A total of 166 randomised clinical trials could be quality assessed. Forty-seven (28.3%) of them reported adequate generation of allocation sequence; 22 (13.3%) adequate allocation concealment; 95 (57.2%) allowed intention-to-treat analysis with only a few losses to follow-up; 50 (30.1%) were double-blind; 33 (19.9%) reported sample-size calculations; 13 trials (7.8%) employed the crossover design; and the median number of subjects per intervention arm in parallel group trials was 19 subjects (interquartile range: 11-31; range: 5-519). The quality of reporting was significantly better in regular issue articles than in supplement articles.
                Many important randomised clinical trials are published in the Journal of Hepatology, but there seems to be ample room for improvement of quality of reporting. Clinical trial registries are in widespread use to promote transparency around trials and their results.
                To describe characteristics of drug trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov and examine whether the funding source of these trials is associated with favorable published outcomes.
                An observational study of safety and efficacy trials for anticholesteremics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, proton-pump inhibitors, and vasodilators conducted between 2000 and 2006.
                ClinicalTrials.gov, a Web-based registry of clinical trials launched in 1999.
                Publications resulting from the trials for the 5 drug categories of interest were identified, and data were abstracted on the trial record and publication, including timing of registration, elements of the study design, funding source, publication date, and study outcomes. Assessments were based on the primary funding categories of industry, government agencies, and nonprofit or nonfederal organizations.
                Among 546 drug trials, 346 (63%) were primarily funded by industry, 74 (14%) by government sources, and 126 (23%) by nonprofit or nonfederal organizations. Trials funded by industry were more likely to be phase 3 or 4 trials (88.7%; P < 0.001 across groups), to use an active comparator in controlled trials (36.8%; P = 0.010 across groups), to be multicenter (89.0%; P < 0.001 across groups), and to enroll more participants (median sample size, 306 participants; P < 0.001 across groups). Overall, 362 (66.3%) trials had published results. Industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes in 85.4% of publications, compared with 50.0% for government-funded trials and 71.9% for nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials (P < 0.001). Trials funded by nonprofit or nonfederal sources with industry contributions were also more likely to report positive outcomes than those without industry funding (85.0% vs. 61.2%; P = 0.013). Rates of trial publication within 24 months of study completion ranged from 32.4% among industry-funded trials to 56.2% among nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials without industry contributions (P = 0.005 across groups).
                The publication status of a trial could not always be confirmed, which could result in misclassification. Additional information on study protocols and comprehensive trial results were not available to further explore underlying factors for the association between funding source and outcome reporting.
                In this sample of registered drug trials, those funded by industry were less likely to be published within 2 years of study completion and were more likely to report positive outcomes than were trials funded by other sources.
                National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Medical evidence may be biased over time if completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials are delayed when results are not statistically significant.
                To evaluate whether the time to completion and the time to publication of randomized phase 2 and phase 3 trials are affected by the statistical significance of results and to describe the natural history of such trials.
                Prospective cohort of randomized efficacy trials conducted by 2 trialist groups from 1986 to 1996.
                Multicenter trial groups in human immunodeficiency virus infection sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
                A total of 109 efficacy trials (total enrollment, 43708 patients).
                Time from start of enrollment to completion of follow-up and time from completion of follow-up to peer-reviewed publication assessed with survival analysis.
                The median time from start of enrollment to publication was 5.5 years and was substantially longer for negative trials than for results favoring an experimental arm (6.5 vs 4.3 years, respectively; P<.001; hazard ratio for time to publication for positive vs negative trials, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-7.7). This difference was mostly attributable to differences in the time from completion to publication (median, 3.0 vs 1.7 years for negative vs positive trials; P<.001). On average, trials with significant results favoring any arm completed follow-up slightly earlier than trials with nonsignificant results (median, 2.3 vs 2.5 years; P=.045), but long-protracted trials often had low event rates and failed to reach statistical significance, while trials that were terminated early had significant results. Positive trials were submitted for publication significantly more rapidly after completion than were negative trials (median, 1.0 vs 1.6 years; P=.001) and were published more rapidly after submission (median, 0.8 vs 1.1 years; P=.04).
                Among randomized efficacy trials, there is a time lag in the publication of negative findings that occurs mostly after the completion of the trial follow-up. To determine whether poor reporting of methods in randomised controlled trials reflects on poor methods.
                Observational study.
                Reports of randomised controlled trials conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group since its establishment in 1968.
                The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Outcome measures Content of reports compared with the design features described in the protocols for all randomised controlled trials.
                The methodological quality of 56 randomised controlled trials was better than reported. Adequate allocation concealment was achieved in all trials but reported in only 42% of papers. An intention to treat analysis was done in 83% of trials but reported in only 69% of papers. The sample size calculation was performed in 76% of the studies, but reported in only 16% of papers. End points were clearly defined and alpha and beta errors were prespecified in 76% and 74% of the trials, respectively, but only reported in 10% of the papers. The one exception was the description of drop outs, where the frequency of reporting was similar to that contained in the original statistical files of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.
                The reporting of methodological aspects of randomised controlled trials does not necessarily reflect the conduct of the trial. Reviewing research protocols and contacting trialists for more information may improve quality assessment. Conventional reviews of research on the efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatments often find considerable variation in outcome among studies and, as a consequence, fail to reach firm conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the interventions in question. In contrast meta-analytic reviews show a strong, dramatic pattern of positive overall effects that cannot readily be explained as artifacts of meta-analytic technique or generalized placebo effects. Moreover, the effects are not so small that they can be dismissed as lacking practical or clinical significance. Although meta-analysis has limitations, there are good reasons to believe that its results are more credible than those of conventional reviews and to conclude that well-developed psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment is generally efficacious. Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results.
                We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.
                451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication.
                In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry. To explore whether reported methodologic quality affects estimated intervention effects in randomized trials and contributes to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.
                Meta-analyses of randomized trials that included at least one large trial (>/=1000 participants) were included, regardless of the therapeutic area. Eligible meta-analyses were identified through electronic searches and bibliographies of relevant articles.
                Full-length randomized trials.
                Methodologic quality was assessed according to reported randomization, double blinding, and follow-up as separate components and by using the Jadad composite scale.
                Fourteen meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials from eight therapeutic areas were included. Compared with large trials, intervention effects were exaggerated in small trials with inadequate allocation sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83]; P = 0.011), inadequate allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.49 [CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; P = 0.014), and no double blinding (ratio of odds ratios, 0.52 [CI, 0.28 to 0.96]; P = 0.01). Large trials did not differ significantly from small trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence, adequate allocation concealment, or adequate double blinding. No association was seen between reported follow-up and intervention effects. The Jadad scale provided no additional information because the scale and the quality components overlapped substantially.
                Inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and double blinding lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention benefit and may contribute to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Publication bias is widely appreciated, but considerable time and effort are needed to locate and obtain data from unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), those published in non-English language journals or those reported in the gray literature; for this publication, we will call this collection of trials the "gray+literature." However, excluding such trials from systematic reviews could introduce bias and give rise to misleading conclusions.
                We aimed to explore and quantify the impact of inclusion of gray+ literature on the results of all completed individual patient data (IPD) reviews coordinated by our group (13 meta-analyses). For each IPD review, results were calculated for RCTs fully published in English language journals and RCTs fully published in English language journals and the gray+literature.
                The IPD meta-analyses based only on RCTs that were fully published in English language journals tended to give more favorable results than those that included RCTs from the gray+literature. Although in most cases the addition of gray+data gave less encouraging results, moving the estimated treatment effect toward a null result, the direction of effect was not always predictable.
                We recommend that all systematic reviews should at least attempt to identify trials reported in the gray+literature and, where possible, obtain data from them. The large volume of published randomized, controlled trials has led to a need for meta-analyses to track therapeutic advances. Performing a new meta-analysis whenever the results of a new trial of a particular therapy are published permits the study of trends in efficacy and makes it possible to determine when a new treatment appears to be significantly effective or deleterious. We describe the use of such a procedure, cumulative meta-analysis, to assess therapeutic trials among patients with myocardial infarction.
                We performed cumulative meta-analyses of clinical trials that evaluated 15 treatments and preventive measures for acute myocardial infarction.
                An example of this method is its application to the use of intravenous streptokinase as thrombolytic therapy for acute infarction. Thirty-three trials evaluating this therapy were performed between 1959 and 1988. We found that a consistent, statistically significant reduction in total mortality (odds ratios, 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.92) was achieved in 1973, after only eight trials involving 2432 patients had been completed. The results of the 25 subsequent trials, which enrolled an additional 34,542 patients through 1988, had little or no effect on the odds ratio establishing efficacy, but simply narrowed the 95 percent confidence interval. In particular, two very large trials, the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico trial in 1986 (11,712 patients) and the Second International Study of Infarct Survival trial in 1988 (17,187 patients) did not modify the already established evidence of efficacy. We used a similar approach to study the accumulating evidence of efficacy (or lack of efficacy) of 14 other therapies and preventive measures for myocardial infarction.
                Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials facilitates the determination of clinical efficacy and harm and may be helpful in tracking trials, planning future trials, and making clinical recommendations for therapy. Specific features of trial quality may be associated with exaggeration or shrinking of the observed treatment effect in randomized studies. Therefore, assessment of trial quality is often used in meta-analysis. However, the degree to which specific quality measures are associated with treatment effects has not been well established across a broad range of clinical areas.
                To determine if quality measures are associated with treatment effect size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
                Quality measures from published quality assessment scales were evaluated in RCTs included in meta-analyses from 4 medical areas (cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, pediatrics, and surgery). Included meta-analyses incorporated at least 6 RCTs, examined dichotomous outcomes, and demonstrated significant between-study heterogeneity in the odds ratio (OR) scale.
                Relative ORs comparing overall treatment effect (summary OR) of high vs low-quality studies, as determined by each quality measure, with relative ORs less than 1 indicating larger treatment effect in low-quality studies.
                Twenty-four quality measures were analyzed for 276 RCTs from 26 meta-analyses. Relative ORs of high vs low-quality studies for these quality measures ranged from 0.83 to 1.26; none was statistically significantly associated with treatment effect. The proportion of studies fulfilling specific quality measures varied widely in the 4 medical areas. In analyses limited to specific medical areas, placebo control, multicenter studies, study country, caregiver blinding, and statistical methods were significantly associated with treatment effect on 7 occasions. These relative ORs ranged from 0.40 to 1.74. However, the directions of these associations were not consistent.
                Individual quality measures are not reliably associated with the strength of treatment effect across studies and medical areas. Although use of specific quality measures may be appropriate in specific well-defined areas in which there is pertinent evidence, findings of associations with treatment effect cannot be generalized to all clinical areas or meta-analyses. Publication bias toward studies that favor new therapies has been known to occur for the past 40 years, yet its implications are not well studied in child health. The increased interest in meta-analyses has highlighted the need to identify the totality of evidence when addressing treatment questions.
                To measure the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at a major pediatric scientific meeting that were subsequently published as full-length articles, to investigate factors associated with publication, and to describe the variables that change from abstract to manuscript form.
                The scientific proceedings from the Society for Pediatric Research were hand searched for RCTs (1992-1995). Subsequent publication was ascertained through a search of various electronic databases. Quality of abstracts and manuscripts was measured, and data were extracted using a structured form.
                A total of 264 (59.1%) of 447 abstracts were subsequently published. Almost 64% of RCTs that were subsequently published favored new therapy compared with 43.5% of studies that were never published (P<.001). Mean effect size for published vs unpublished RCTs was 0.74 vs 0.05 (P<.001). Median sample size was larger in published (n = 45) vs unpublished (n = 34) RCTs (P =.02). Quality was significantly lower for abstracts vs published RCTs (P<.001). For 5% of abstracts that were subsequently published, the conclusion regarding treatment efficacy changed.
                Publication bias is a serious threat to assessing the effectiveness of interventions in child health, as little more than half of RCTs presented at a major scientific meeting are subsequently published. There is a need to institute an international registry of RCTs in children so that the totality of evidence can be accessed when assessing treatment effectiveness.
Most trials have been designed and reported so poorly that they are inconclusive. There is a need for large well conducted studies that evaluate long-term effects of current therapies to improve quality and standardization of methods.