Presentation in relation to publication of results from clinical trials

Evaluation of Issues Affecting Time Between Study Completion, Manuscript Submission, Acceptance, and Publication in Medical Journals

Introduction: Difficulty in finding the appropriate journal, adherence to the formatting differences between various journals, publication fees, delay in acceptance/rejection, etc., are a few reasons due to which much research is not published or when published the data in the research may become outdated. There are no studies to find out the issues which affect the time delay between study completion, submission to the journal, acceptance by the journal, and publication. With this background, we conducted this study.

Methods: This study was exempted by the Ethics committee as it was based on online data. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2020 (Clarivate analytics), CiteScore, and Google Scholar were used to sort the high-, moderate-, and low-impact factor journals. Forty-five journals each from high-, medium- and low-impact factors (h-index median, Google Scholar Metrics h5-index) were selected. Similarly, 15 predatory scientific journals were chosen. Journals with medical science backgrounds were chosen by randomization. Only original research articles were included. From each journal, five articles were chosen randomly from the latest issue pre-pandemic. The search was performed from April 2021 to June 2021. Variables analyzed were indexing of the journal, publication fees, level of impact factor, specialty domain, number of editors, frequency per year, date of study completion, date of submission, date of acceptance, date of publication, and h-index median. Data were compiled in Microsoft Excel Workbook (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and analyzed using IBM Corp. Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Variables of time were represented as median and interquartile range, and the number of journals and processing fees for publication were descriptively analyzed.

Results: Out of 60 journals selected, 300 original articles were analyzed. There were 26 specialty-wise journals; the commonest was multispecialty journals. The fastest time from study completion to submission, submission to acceptance, submission to publication, and acceptance to publication was 15.5, 30, 61, and 0 days, respectively, and the slowest duration was 1636, 452, 615, and 456 days, respectively. PubMed indexed journals had a higher number of editors, h5-index, and h5 median, and slower time for acceptance and publication compared to non-PubMed indexed journals (p<0.05). Predatory journals had a lower h5-index and h5 median along with faster time to acceptance and publication compared to high and moderate impact factor journals (p<0.05). Journal with faster acceptance had faster publication as well (r=0.85), but no impact of the number of editors, number of issues per year (frequency), and publication fees with time to acceptance and publication.

Conclusion: Though PubMed indexed journals with a greater number of editors and high fees are slower to publish articles but they are a safe option for researchers. The impact factor does not effect the speed of publication for non-predatory journals. Paying high fees and choosing a journal with more issues per year does not ensure quick publication to the researchers.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review.

METHODS

A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data.

RESULTS

Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed.

Research ethics II: Mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership

PURPOSE

In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics II, the authors review the RCR domains of mentoring, collaboration, peer review, and data management and ownership.

METHOD

They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors close by urging readers to stay abreast of the manifold ethics issues facing today's community of scientists, policymakers, and research institutions, and to adhere to best practices as they evolve.

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

PURPOSE

Only 53% and 63% of studies and clinical trials results presented at congresses are published. Company-sponsored trial results are being posted on publicly accessible Web sites. We analyzed the public availability (publication or posting on a Web site) rate, time to publication, and factors predicting public availability of results of studies sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study analyzing all studies conducted by GlaxoSmithKline in Spain between 2001 and 2006. Initiation and completion were defined as first participant/first visit and last participant/last visit (or their equivalents). Papers published up to 31 March 2009 were considered. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors predicting public availability of results.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 143 studies (94 clinical trials; of these, 87 were included in international products clinical development plans). Public availability rate was 80% (114/143) for all studies and 78% (73/94) for clinical trials; publication rates were 68% and 61%, respectively. The median time to publication for all studies and trials was 27.3 and 28.4 months, respectively. Study associated to a cancelled project was the only significant factor associated with lower publication rate for all studies [odds ratio (OR) 0.069; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-024; p < 0.001) and trials (OR 0.075; 95% CI 0.016-0.343; p = 0.001) and a lower public availability rate (OR 0.052; 95% CI 0.007-0.382; p = 0.004) for trial results. Therapy area, sample size, positive trial results, duration of experimental phase, and being a clinical trial did not predict publication or public availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Eighty percent of studies included in this analysis are publicly available. Web site posting increases public availability rate of clinical trial results from 61% to 78%. Cancellation of projects is the single factor negatively influencing publication and public availability rates.