Literature DB >> 15967761

Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study.

Evelyne Decullier1, Véronique Lhéritier, François Chapuis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the fate of protocols approved by the French research ethics committees, a national system created by the French 1988 Huriet-Sérusclat Act; to assess publication bias at a national level.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Representative sample of 25/48 French research ethics committees in 1994. PROTOCOLS: 649 research protocols approved by committees, with follow-up information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Protocols' initial characteristics (design, study size, investigator) abstracted from committees' archives; follow-up information (rates of initiation, completion, and publication) obtained from mailed questionnaire to principal investigators.
RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were available for 649/976 (69%) protocols. Of these, 581 (90%) studies were initiated, 501/581 (86%) were completed, and 190/501 (38%) were published. Studies with confirmatory results were more likely to be published as scientific papers than were studies with inconclusive results (adjusted odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 9.54). Moreover, studies with confirmatory results were published more quickly than studies with inconclusive results (hazard ratio 2.48, 1.36 to 4.55).
CONCLUSION: At a national level, too many research studies are not completed, and among those completed too many are not published. We suggest capitalising on research ethics committees to register and follow all authorised research on human participants on a systematic and prospective basis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15967761      PMCID: PMC558532          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38488.385995.8F

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  18 in total

1.  Publication bias is a scientific problem with adverse ethical outcomes: the case for a section for null results.

Authors:  P G Shields
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results.

Authors:  Judit Pich; Xavier Carné; Joan-Albert Arnaiz; Begoña Gómez; Antoni Trilla; Juan Rodés
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-03-22       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Mette T Haahr; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Compulsory registration of clinical trials.

Authors:  Kamran Abbasi
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-09-18

5.  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Authors:  Catherine DeAngelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A J P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Hal C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2004-09-20       Impact factor: 7.738

6.  Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use.

Authors: 
Journal:  Med Etika Bioet       Date:  2002 Spring-Summer

7.  The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence.

Authors:  K Dickersin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.

Authors:  R J Simes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Reducing publication bias.

Authors:  P Easterbrook
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-11-21

10.  Underreporting research is scientific misconduct.

Authors:  I Chalmers
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  63 in total

1.  Are results from pharmaceutical-company-sponsored studies available to the public?

Authors:  Rafael Dal-Ré; Alejandro Pedromingo; Manuel García-Losa; Juan Lahuerta; Rafael Ortega
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Methodological characteristics of academic clinical drug trials--a retrospective cohort study of applications to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993-2005.

Authors:  Louise Berendt; Cecilia Håkansson; Karin F Bach; Per B Andreasen; Lene G Petersen; Elin Andersen; Henrik E Poulsen; Kim Dalhoff
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Current landscape of type 1 diabetes mellitus-related interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Ruiming Liang; Jianyan Long; Qiuyi Zheng; Gang Yuan; Xinwen Chen; Ziyi Xin; Fenghua Lai; Yihao Liu
Journal:  Acta Diabetol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 4.280

4.  Dissemination of results needs to be tracked as well as the funding is.

Authors:  James McCormack; Peter Loewen; Peter Jewesson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-08-20

Review 5.  Research protocols: waiving confidentiality for the greater good.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Ross Upshur; Jerome A Singh; Davina Ghersi; François Chapuis; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-05-06

6.  Systematic reviews of meta-analyses: applications and limitations.

Authors:  Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Oral presentation bias: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Evelyne Decullier; François Chapuis
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 8.  Do we learn the right things from clinical trials?

Authors:  Silvio Garattini; Vittorio Bertele'
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Is the randomized controlled drug trial in Europe lagging behind the USA?

Authors:  Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink; Mirjam J Knol; Robert J W Tijssen; Thed N van Leeuwen; Diederick E Grobbee; Dick de Zeeuw
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 10.  Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.

Authors:  Sally Hopewell; Kirsty Loudon; Mike J Clarke; Andrew D Oxman; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-01-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.