Literature DB >> 27423510

Improving publication rates in a collaborative clinical trials research network.

Stephanie Wilson Archer1, Waldemar A Carlo2, William E Truog3, David K Stevenson4, Krisa P Van Meurs4, Pablo J Sánchez5, Abhik Das6, Uday Devaskar7, Leif D Nelin8, Carolyn M Petrie Huitema6, Margaret M Crawford6, Rosemary D Higgins9.   

Abstract

Unpublished results can bias biomedical literature, favoring positive over negative findings, primary over secondary analyses, and can lead to duplicate studies that unnecessarily endanger subjects and waste resources. The Neonatal Research Network's (NRN) publication policies for approving, reviewing, and tracking abstracts and papers work to combat these problems. In 2003, the NRN restricted investigators with unfinished manuscripts from proposing new ones and in 2010, urged authors to complete long-outstanding manuscripts. Data from 1991 to 2015 were analyzed to determine effectiveness of these policy changes. The NRN has achieved an overall publication rate of 78% for abstracts. For 1990-2002, of 137 abstracts presented, 43 (31%) were published within 2 years; for 2003-2009, after the manuscript completion policy was instituted, of 140 abstracts presented, 68 (49%) were published within 2 years. Following the effort in 2010, the rate increased to 64%. The NRN surpassed reported rates by developing a comprehensive process, holding investigators accountable and tracking abstracts from presentation to publication.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Authorship policies; Network collaboration; Publication rates

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27423510      PMCID: PMC5192287          DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2016.05.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Perinatol        ISSN: 0146-0005            Impact factor:   3.300


  6 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  R W Scherer; K Dickersin; P Langenberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-07-13       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Gynecologic oncology group strategies to improve timeliness of publication.

Authors:  Sally Bialy; John A Blessing; Frederick B Stehman; Anne M Reardon; Kim M Blaser
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 4.  More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Michael C Costanza; Bernhard Walder; Martin R Tramèr
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-07-10       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 5.  Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review.

Authors:  Kerry Dwan; Carrol Gamble; Paula R Williamson; Jamie J Kirkham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Publication and reporting of clinical trial results: cross sectional analysis across academic medical centers.

Authors:  Ruijun Chen; Nihar R Desai; Joseph S Ross; Weiwei Zhang; Katherine H Chau; Brian Wayda; Karthik Murugiah; Daniel Y Lu; Amit Mittal; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-02-17
  6 in total
  2 in total

1.  Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication.

Authors:  A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; D A Korevaar; T A McGrath; N van Es; R A Frank; L Cherpak; W Dang; J P Salameh; F Nguyen; C Stanley; M D F McInnes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Publication rates from biomedical and behavioral and social science R01s funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Authors:  William T Riley; Katrina Bibb; Sara Hargrave; Paula Fearon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.