4.7 Editorial Material

Commentary: Practicing on the Tip of an Information Iceberg? Evidence of Underpublication of Registered Clinical Trials in Oncology

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 925-929

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0133

关键词

Cancer; Clinical trials; Registries; Publication bias

类别

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R25CA092408] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R25 CA092408, R25 CA092408-08, R25 CA 92408] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors require, as a condition of consideration for publication, that all clinical trials be registered in a public trials registry. We evaluated the proportion of registered trials that are published in the peer-reviewed literature. Methods. After downloading the contents of the National Institutes of Health's ClinicalTrials.gov registry, we used key words to identify trials in oncology. We then evaluated the proportion of trials that had been published in journals listed in PubMed.gov. Among trials with published results, we determined the proportion that reported positive versus negative results. Results. Among the 2,028 trials meeting the inclusion criteria, 17.6% were available in PubMed. Twenty-one percent of the trials registered before September 1, 2004 were published, compared with 11.9% of those registered after this date. Trials sponsored by clinical trial networks published the greatest proportion of registered studies (59.0%); studies sponsored by industry published the fewest (5.9%). Among published studies, 64.5% reported the results as positive findings. Conclusions. Less than one in five studies in cancer that are registered with clinicaltrials.gov have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Research sponsors, researchers, and journal editors should redouble their efforts to encourage publication of registered clinical trials in oncology. The Oncologist 2008; 13: 925-929

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据