Lack of Transparency in Publishing Negative Clinical Trial Results

Bibliometric evaluation of negative publications from orthopedics and traumatology from the ten most influential journals of 2009-2010 and 2019-2020: A comparative study with the "Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research" journal, using the same analysis of submitted and accepted articles

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding negative articles concerning surgery in orthopedics and trauma. Knowledge pertaining to treatments or techniques which confer a beneficial effect remains important, as does knowledge regarding those which have a null or pejorative effect. Thus, this study was carried out on negative articles in order to: (1) determine their proportion in the ten predominant journals concerning orthopedic and trauma surgery; (2) assess variability in their publication rate depending on the journal and the year, and compare their citation rate to that of positive articles; (3) specify whether a positive article was more likely to be cited compared to a negative article; (4) carry out the same bibliometric analysis with the "Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR)" journal, and detect possible selection bias for negative articles during the review.

HYPOTHESIS

There are fewer negative articles than positive articles in the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The study was carried out using the ten orthopedic and trauma surgery journals with the highest impact factors for the year 2021. Two periods were compared, 2009-2010 and 2019-2020. Among the 17,812 publications obtained, 11,962 publications were retained to carry out the analysis (technical notes, meta-analyses, editorials and letters to the editor were all excluded). An analysis using the same method was carried out on the 3,727 articles submitted to OTSR from 2015 to 2021, which made it possible to compare the rejected articles to the accepted articles.

RESULTS

Negative articles represented 11% (1,342/12,023) of the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. There were differences in the rate of publication of negative articles depending on the journals (from 4.04% to 17.14%) (p<0.0001). The negative article publication rate did not change between the two periods studied: 534/4963 articles (10.76%) in 2009-2010 versus 802/6999 (11.46%) in 2019-2020 (p=0.23). Positive articles were not cited more often than negative ones: no significant difference between the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) classes (respectively for classes 0;1[/[1;2[/≥ 2 with 45.66% 28.22% and 26.12% for negative articles versus 44.90% 27.46% and 27.64% for positive articles [p=0.4]) and the Top10% (with 18.86% for negative articles versus 20.10% for positive ones [p=0.28]). The OTSR journal had a rate of negative articles of 9.46% which was within the average range of the journals studied. A selection bias (p<0.02) for negative articles during the review of the OTSR journal was identified with fewer negative articles accepted (115/1216 [9.46%]) than positive articles (164/1330 [12.33%]).

DISCUSSION

The publication of negative articles varies according to the journals and although it is modest, at only 11%, it is essential because it allows us not to repeat errors but also not to bias the carrying out of meta-analyses, and among other things to avoid useless studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case control study from the literature.

Discontinuation and nonpublication analysis of chronic pain randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain.

Methods

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered.

Results

In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14]).

Conclusion

The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished - all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.

Do published trial results influence physician prescribing patterns? Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor usage by the United States Ophthalmologists before and after Protocol T study

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical trial publications may influence physician prescribing patterns. The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) Protocol T study, published in 2015, examined outcomes of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications for treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DME). This study investigates if the Protocol T 1-year results were associated with changes in prescribing patterns.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anti-VEGF agents have revolutionized treatment of DME by blocking angiogenesis signalled by VEGF. Three commonly used anti-VEGF agents are on-label aflibercept (Eylea, Regeneron) and ranibizumab (Lucentis, Genentech) and off-label bevacizumab (Avastin, Genentech).

SUMMARY

From 2013 to 2018, there was a significant positive trend in the average number of aflibercept injections for any indication ( P  < 0.002). There was no significant trend in the average number of bevacizumab ( P  = 0.09) and ranibizumab ( P  = 0.43) for any indication. The mean proportion of aflibercept injections per provider per year was 0.181, 0.217, 0.311, 0.403, 0.419 and 0.427; each year-by-year comparison was significant (all P  < 0.001), and the largest increase was in 2015, the year of publication of Protocol T 1-year results. These results imply and reinforce that clinical trial publications may have significant effects on ophthalmologist prescribing patterns.

Voice Outcomes Following Serial Office-Based Steroid Injections and Voice Therapy for Vocal Fold Scar

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies indicate that certain voice outcomes can improve following a single office-based steroid injection with voice therapy for vocal fold scar. We evaluated voice outcomes after a series of three timed office-based steroid injections with voice therapy.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series with chart review.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

METHODS

We evaluated pre-and postprocedural patient-reported, perceptual, acoustic, aerodynamic, and videostroboscopic parameters. We evaluated 23 patients who underwent three office-based dexamethasone injections into the superficial lamina propria one month apart. All patients pursued voice therapy.

RESULTS

Voice Handicap Index (n = 19; P= .030) decreased after injection series. Total GRBAS score (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain) decreased (n = 23; P = 0.001). Dysphonia severity index score improved (n = 20; P = 0.041). Phonation threshold pressure did not decrease significantly (n = 22; P = 0.536). Videostroboscopic parameters of vocal fold edge (P = 0.023), right mucosal wave (P = 0.023) improved or normalized after injection series. Glottic closure (P = 0.134) did not improve.

CONCLUSIONS

Series of three office-based steroid injections combined with voice therapy for vocal fold scar does not appear to provide further benefit than one injection. Despite lack of improvements of PTP and other parameters, injection series is likewise unlikely to worsen dysphonia. A partially negative study provides value in investigation of less invasive treatment alternatives for a disorder that is challenging to treat. Future studies exploring effects of voice therapy alone without other intervention and consideration of sham injection versus steroid injection are warranted.

Towards full clinical trial registration and results publication: longitudinal meta-research study in Northwestern and Central Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

The registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020.

METHODS

We extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators.

RESULTS

Of 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%).

CONCLUSIONS

In Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular.