IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03775-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why an automated tracker finds poor sharing of clinical trial results for an academic sponsor: a bibliometric analysis

Author

Listed:
  • E. Decullier

    (Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pôle Santé Publique, Service Recherche et Epidémiologie Cliniques
    Université de Lyon
    Université Lyon 1)

  • P. V. Tang

    (Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pôle Santé Publique, Service Recherche et Epidémiologie Cliniques)

  • L. Huot

    (Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pôle Santé Publique, Service Recherche et Epidémiologie Cliniques
    Université de Lyon
    Université Lyon 1)

  • H. Maisonneuve

    (Medical Writing)

Abstract

Objective: a Researchers have a duty to make the results of their research available publicly. According to the FDA, clinical trial data must be made public less than 12 months after the end of the trial. The trialstracker website ( https://trialstracker.ebmdatalab.net/#/ ) ranks sponsors according to the proportion of unpublished clinical trials by extracting data from a prospective trial registry: clinicaltrials.gov. A low proportion of published trials could be explained by a failure to share results or the sponsor incorrectly filling out the clinicaltrials.gov database. The objective of this study was to assess for which of these reasons one academic sponsor was shown to have a high proportion of unpublished results. Methods: Bibliographic searches were performed and followed up with an email contact for the 104 HCL (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France) trials used by trialstracker to assess publication status. Results: Trialstracker considered that only 25 out of the 104 HCL trials had been published. By searching PubMed between February and April 2019, we rapidly identified publications for 27 further trials. A more advanced search and contact with the investigators allowed us to identify 24 more published trials. Overall, the proportion of trials published was 72.1% (n = 75) i.e. 3 times higher than the proportion provided by trialstracker. Even when restricted to the results found via a simple search, the proportion of publications was still higher with a two-fold increase. Conclusion: We found that trialstracker greatly underestimated the number of publications. All actors should therefore contribute to improving the visibility of clinical trial results by providing NCT numbers for all publications (investigator), and by updating clinicaltrials.gov (sponsor and investigator).

Suggested Citation

  • E. Decullier & P. V. Tang & L. Huot & H. Maisonneuve, 2021. "Why an automated tracker finds poor sharing of clinical trial results for an academic sponsor: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1239-1248, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03775-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03775-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03775-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03775-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolina Riveros & Agnes Dechartres & Elodie Perrodeau & Romana Haneef & Isabelle Boutron & Philippe Ravaud, 2013. "Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Kerry Dwan & Carrol Gamble & Paula R Williamson & Jamie J Kirkham & the Reporting Bias Group, 2013. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-37, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xin Li & Xuli Tang & Wei Lu, 2023. "Tracking biomedical articles along the translational continuum: a measure based on biomedical knowledge representation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1295-1319, February.

    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. Jamie J Kirkham & Kerry M Dwan & Anette Blümle & Erik von Elm & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "How Much Participant Outcome Data Is Missing from Sight: Findings from a Cohort of Trials Submitted to a German Research Ethics Committee," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Je-Young Lee & Minkyung Baek, 2023. "Effects of Gamification on Students’ English Language Proficiency: A Meta-Analysis on Research in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    3. John Copas, 2022. "Akaike Memorial Lecture 2020: Some of the challenges of statistical applications," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 74(4), pages 615-637, August.
    4. Zhou-min Yuan & Mingxin Yao, 2022. "Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6191-6207, November.
    5. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Christian Thiele & Gerrit Hirschfeld & Ruth Brachel, 2021. "Clinical trial registries as Scientometric data: A novel solution for linking and deduplicating clinical trials from multiple registries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9733-9750, December.
    7. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    8. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    9. Tinashe Dune & Jacqueline Ullman & Tania Ferfolja & Jack Thepsourinthone & Shirali Garga & Zelalem Mengesha, 2020. "Are Services Inclusive? A Review of the Experiences of Older GSD Women in Accessing Health, Social and Aged Care Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Jacob T Bush & Monique Wasunna & Fabiana Alves & Jorge Alvar & Piero L Olliaro & Michael Otieno & Carol Hopkins Sibley & Nathalie Strub Wourgaft & Philippe J Guerin, 2017. "Systematic review of clinical trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of visceral leishmaniasis treatments: A first step to assess the feasibility of establishing an individual patient data sharing ," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    11. Claire Godard-Sebillotte & Mélanie Le Berre & Tibor Schuster & Miguel Trottier & Isabelle Vedel, 2019. "Impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2016. "Are citations from clinical trials evidence of higher impact research? An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1341-1351, November.
    13. Kellia Chiu & Quinn Grundy & Lisa Bero, 2017. "‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    14. Eijgermans, D.G.M. & Fang, Y. & Jansen, D.E.M.C. & Bramer, W.M. & Raat, H. & Jansen, W., 2021. "Individual and contextual determinants of children’s and adolescents’ mental health care use: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    15. Anette Blümle & Tobias Haag & James Balmford & Gerta Rücker & Martin Schumacher & Nadine Binder, 2020. "A multi-state model analysis of the time from ethical approval to publication of clinical research studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Nguyen, Anh & Tan, Teck Yong, 2021. "Bayesian persuasion with costly messages," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    17. Jaithri Ananthapavan & Gary Sacks & Marj Moodie & Rob Carter, 2014. "Economics of Obesity — Learning from the Past to Contribute to a Better Future," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Xueying Liu & Haoran Zhu, 2023. "Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3107-3127, May.
    19. Arnaud Vaganay, 2016. "Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Chuan Hong & Georgia Salanti & Sally C. Morton & Richard D. Riley & Haitao Chu & Stephen E. Kimmel & Yong Chen, 2020. "Testing small study effects in multivariate meta‐analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1240-1250, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03775-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.