IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1001819.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationale for WHO's New Position Calling for Prompt Reporting and Public Disclosure of Interventional Clinical Trial Results

Author

Listed:
  • Vasee S Moorthy
  • Ghassan Karam
  • Kirsten S Vannice
  • Marie-Paule Kieny

Abstract

Vasee Moorthy and colleagues explain why the WHO is calling for public disclosure of clinical trial results.

Suggested Citation

  • Vasee S Moorthy & Ghassan Karam & Kirsten S Vannice & Marie-Paule Kieny, 2015. "Rationale for WHO's New Position Calling for Prompt Reporting and Public Disclosure of Interventional Clinical Trial Results," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-4, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001819
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001819
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001819&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001819?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroki Saito & Christopher J Gill, 2014. "How Frequently Do the Results from Completed US Clinical Trials Enter the Public Domain? - A Statistical Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    2. Christine Schmucker & Lisa K Schell & Susan Portalupi & Patrick Oeller & Laura Cabrera & Dirk Bassler & Guido Schwarzer & Roberta W Scherer & Gerd Antes & Erik von Elm & Joerg J Meerpohl & on behalf o, 2014. "Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Howard & Jared T Scott & Mark Blubaugh & Brie Roepke & Caleb Scheckel & Matt Vassar, 2017. "Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001819. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.