IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0012676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Result Publication of Chinese Trials in World Health Organization Primary Registries

Author

Listed:
  • Liu Xuemei
  • Li Youping
  • Yin Senlin
  • Song Shangqi

Abstract

Background: Result publication is the key step to improve the transparency of clinical trials. Objective: To investigate the result publication rate of Chinese trials registered in World Health Organization (WHO) primary registries. Method: We searched 11 WHO primary registries for Chinese trials records. The progress of each trial was analyzed. We searched for the full texts of result publications cited in the registration records. For completed trials without citations, we searched PubMed, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (Chinese), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals Database for result publications. The search was conducted on July 14, 2009. We also called the investigators of completed trials to ask about results publication. Results: We identified 1294 Chinese trials records (428 in ChiCTR,743 in clinicaltrials.gov,55 in ISRCTN, 21 in ACTRN). A total of 443 trials had been completed. The publication rate of the Chinese trials in WHO primary registries is 35.2%(156/443).The publication rate of Chinese trials in clinicaltrials.gov, ChiCTR, ISRCTN, and ACRTN was 36.5% (53/145), 36.3% (89/245), 26.0%(9/44), and 55.6%(5/9), respectively. The publication rate of trials sponsored by industry(23.8%) was lower than that of sponsored by central and local government(31.7%), hospital(35.1%), and universities (40.7%). The publication rate for randomized trials was higher than that of cohort study and case-control study (33.2% versus 16.7%, 22.2%). The publication rate for interventional studies and observational studies was similar(33.4% versus 33.3%). Conclusion: The publication rate of the registered Chinese trials was low, with no significant difference between ChiCTR and clinicaltrials.gov. An effective mechanism is needed to promote publication of results for registered trials in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu Xuemei & Li Youping & Yin Senlin & Song Shangqi, 2010. "Result Publication of Chinese Trials in World Health Organization Primary Registries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-7, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0012676
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012676
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012676&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0012676?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. Neal S Young & John P A Ioannidis & Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2008. "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-5, October.
    2. Joseph S Ross & Gregory K Mulvey & Elizabeth M Hines & Steven E Nissen & Harlan M Krumholz, 2009. "Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-9, September.
    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. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Roberta W Scherer & Pamela C Sieving & Ann-Margret Ervin & Kay Dickersin, 2012. "Can We Depend on Investigators to Identify and Register Randomized Controlled Trials?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-6, September.
    5. Kirmayer, Laurence J., 2012. "Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics of pluralism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 249-256.
    6. Zuzana Irsova & Hristos Doucouliagos & Tomas Havranek & T. D. Stanley, 2024. "Meta‐analysis of social science research: A practitioner's guide," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 1547-1566, December.
    7. Chris Doucouliagos & T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition And Selectivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 316-339, April.
    8. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Diana de la Iglesia & Miguel García-Remesal & Alberto Anguita & Miguel Muñoz-Mármol & Casimir Kulikowski & Víctor Maojo, 2014. "A Machine Learning Approach to Identify Clinical Trials Involving Nanodrugs and Nanodevices from ClinicalTrials.gov," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    11. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Dana Suskind, 2019. "The science of using science: Towards an understanding of the threats to scaling experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00670, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Stephan B. Bruns, 2013. "Identifying Genuine Effects in Observational Research by Means of Meta-Regressions," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-040, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    13. Ian Thomas & Kathryn Hegarty & Stuart Whitman & Val Macgregor, 2012. "Professional Associations," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 6(1), pages 121-136, March.
    14. Judith G M Bergboer & Maša Umićević-Mirkov & Jaap Fransen & Martin den Heijer & Barbara Franke & Piet L C M van Riel & Joost Schalkwijk & Marieke J H Coenen & on behalf of the Nijmegen Biomedical Stud, 2012. "A Replication Study of the Association between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Deletion of the Late Cornified Envelope Genes LCE3B and LCE3C," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-5, February.
    15. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List & Dana L. Suskind, 2017. "What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 282-286, May.
    16. Brian P Walcott & Sameer A Sheth & Brian V Nahed & Jean-Valery Coumans, 2012. "Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-4, August.
    17. Mark D Lindner & Richard K Nakamura, 2015. "Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    18. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Carsten Nieder & Adam Pawinski & Astrid Dalhaug, 2012. "Contribution of Case Reports to Brain Metastases Research: Systematic Review and Analysis of Pattern of Citation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-4, March.
    20. Gregory S Barsh & Gregory P Copenhaver, 2009. "Scientists←Editors←Scientists: The Past, Present, and Future of PLoS Genetics," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-2, 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:pone00:0012676. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.