We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Assessing the Eventual Publication of Clinical Trial Abstracts Submitted to a Large Annual Oncology Meeting.
- Authors
Massey, Paul R.; Wang, Ruibin; Prasad, Vinay; Bates, Susan E.; Fojo, Tito
- Abstract
Background. Despite the ethical imperative to publish clinical trials when human subjects are involved, such data frequently remain unpublished. The objectives were to tabulate the rate and ascertain factors associated with eventual publication of clinical trial results reported as abstracts in the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology). Materials and Methods. Abstracts describing clinical trials for patients with breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer from 2009 to 2011 were identified by using a comprehensive online database (http://meetinglibrary.asco. org/abstracts). Abstracts included reported results of a treatment or intervention assessed in a discrete, prospective clinical trial. Publication status at 426 years was determined by using a standardized search of PubMed. Primary outcomes were the rate of publication for abstracts of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Secondary outcomes included factors influencing the publication of results. Results. A total of 1,075 abstracts describing 378 randomized and 697 nonrandomized clinical trials were evaluated. Across all years, 75% of randomized and 54% of nonrandomized trials were published, with an overall publication rate of 61%. Sample size was a statistically significant predictor of publication for both randomized and nonrandomized trials (odds ratio [OR] per increase of 100 participants 5 1.23 [1.11-1.36], p < .001; and 1.64 [1.15-2.34], p = .006, respectively). Among randomized studies, an industry coauthor or involvement of a cooperative group increased thelikelihoodofpublication(OR2.37, p = .013; and 2.21, p = .01, respectively). Among nonrandomized studies, phase II trials were more likely to be published than phase I (p < .001). Use of an experimental agent was not a predictor of publication in randomized (OR 0.76 [0.38-1.52]; p = .441) or nonrandomized trials (OR 0.89 [0.61-1.29]; p = .532). Conclusion. This is the largest reported study examining why oncology trials are not published. The data show that 426 years after appearing as abstracts, 39% of oncology clinical trials remain unpublished. Larger sample size and advanced trial phase were associated with eventual publication; among randomized trials, an industry-affiliated author or a cooperative group increased likelihood of publication. Unfortunately, we found that, despite widespread recognition of the problem and the creation of central data repositories, timely publishing of oncology clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory.
- Subjects
ABSTRACTING; AMERICAN Society of Clinical Oncology; CHI-squared test; CONFIDENCE intervals; MEDICAL literature; MEDICAL research; MEDLINE; META-analysis; MULTIVARIATE analysis; ONLINE information services; SERIAL publications; SYSTEMATIC reviews; EVIDENCE-based medicine; DECISION making in clinical medicine; RETROSPECTIVE studies; DATA analysis software; DESCRIPTIVE statistics; ODDS ratio
- Publication
Oncologist, 2016, Vol 21, Issue 3, p261
- ISSN
1083-7159
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0516