Positive reasons for publishing negative findings

Public reporting of clinical trial findings as an ethical responsibility to participants: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To understand how the experiences and views of trial participants, trial investigators and others connected to clinical trial research relate to whether researchers have a duty to participants to publicly report research findings.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Semistructured interviews held in person or by telephone between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

PARTICIPANTS

34 participants, including 10 clinical trial participants, 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators and 3 research ethics board members.

ANALYSIS

We conducted a thematic analysis, including qualitative coding of interview transcripts and identification of key themes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Key themes identified through qualitative coding of interview data.

RESULTS

Most clinical trial participants felt that reporting clinical trial results is important. Accounts of trial participants suggest their contributions are part of a reciprocal relationship involving the expectation that research will advance medical knowledge. Similarly, comments from trial investigators suggest that reporting trial results is part of reciprocity with trial participants and is a necessary part of honouring informed consent. Accounts of trial investigators suggest that when drug trials are not reported, this may undermine informed consent in subsequent trials by withholding information on harms or efficacy relevant to informed decisions on whether to conduct or enroll in future trials of similar drugs.

CONCLUSION

The views of trial participants, trial investigators and others connected to clinical trial research in Canada suggest that researchers have an obligation to participants to publicly report clinical trial results and that reporting results is necessary for honouring informed consent.

Industry Sponsor Influence in Clinical Trial Reporting in Canada: A Qualitative Interview Study

PURPOSE

Approximately 40% of randomized controlled trials are not published, leading to publication bias and less informed clinical decision-making. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand whether and how industry sponsors of clinical trials of drugs and biologics in Canada influence decisions to report trial results.

METHODS

Participants eligible for an interview included clinical trial investigators and research coordinators with experience in drug research, research ethics board members with at least 1 year of experience in ethical review of trials, research administrators with knowledge of dissemination of clinical trial findings or relations with trial sponsors, and trial participants who had taken part in a drug trial as an adult in the 5 years before their interview. Semi-structured interviews were held in person or by telephone between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. Qualitative analysis included coding of interview transcripts and identification of key themes.

FINDINGS

Interviews were conducted with 34 participants, including 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, 3 research ethics board members, and 10 clinical trial participants. Participants involved in the conduct, administration, or ethical review of trials represented a range of medical disciplines. Interview participant accounts indicated that in some cases, industry sponsors influence whether results are reported. A core theme was that companies have a weaker incentive to publish trials with unfavorable findings and trials for products that they have decided not to develop further. Companies may influence reporting in various ways, including stopping trials early and not reporting results of stopped trials, owning and controlling access to data, and negotiating clinical trial agreements in multicenter trials that do not fully protect the ability of investigators to publish. Internal company trials represent an additional source of unpublished trials. More broadly, the research system creates a dependency on funding from industry sponsors that may weaken the ability of researchers and research institutions to negotiate terms with industry sponsors that would fully protect publication rights.

IMPLICATIONS

Interviews with trial investigators and others connected to trial research indicate that in some cases, industry sponsors of clinical trial research in Canada influence whether results are reported. Policies aiming to bring about full reporting of trials could benefit from considering the commercial incentives of companies and the ways in which industry sponsors may influence clinical trial reporting. Future research could examine the generalizability of these findings to other jurisdictions.

How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone's Research Contributions Make It into the Paper

While much of the scholarly work on ethics relating to academic authorship examines the fair distribution of authorship credit, none has yet examined situations where a researcher contributes significantly to the project, but whose contributions do not make it into the final manuscript. Such a scenario is commonplace in collaborative research settings in many disciplines and may occur for a number of reasons, such as excluding research in order to provide the paper with a clearer focus, tell a particular story, or exclude negative results that do not fit the hypothesis. Our concern in this paper is less about the reasons for including or excluding data from a paper and more about distributing credit in this type of scenario. In particular, we argue that the notion 'substantial contribution', which is part of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, is ambiguous and that we should ask whether it concerns what ends up in the paper or what is a substantial contribution to the research process leading up to the paper. We then argue, based on the principles of fairness, due credit, and ensuring transparency and accountability in research, that the latter interpretation is more plausible from a research ethics point of view. We conclude that the ICMJE and other organizations interested in authorship and publication ethics should consider including guidance on authorship attribution in situations where researchers contribute significantly to the research process leading up to a specific paper, but where their contribution is finally omitted.

Biases Inherent in Studies of Coffee Consumption in Early Pregnancy and the Risks of Subsequent Events

Consumption of coffee by women early in their pregnancy has been viewed as potentially increasing the risk of miscarriage, low birth weight, and childhood leukemias. Many of these reports of epidemiologic studies have not acknowledged the potential biases inherent in studying the relationship between early-pregnancy-coffee consumption and subsequent events. I discuss five of these biases, recall bias, misclassification, residual confounding, reverse causation, and publication bias. Each might account for claims that attribute adversities to early-pregnancy-coffee consumption. To what extent these biases can be avoided remains to be determined. As a minimum, these biases need to be acknowledged wherever they might account for what is reported.

Buddy Study: Partners for better health in adolescents with type 2 diabetes

AIM: To investigate whether assigning young, healthy and motivated lay volunteer partners (“buddies”) to adolescents with type 2 diabetes improves hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

METHODS: Adolescents with type 2 diabetes were randomized to partnering with a “buddy” or to conventional treatment. During the initial screening visit, which coincided with a routine outpatient diabetes clinic visit, patients with type 2 diabetes underwent a physical examination, detailed medical history, laboratory measurement of HbA1c, and completed two questionnaires (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and Children’s Depression Inventory) to assess their overall quality of life and the presence of depressive symptoms. Patients were then randomized to the intervention (the buddy system) or conventional treatment (standard care). All patients were scheduled to return for follow-up at 3- and 6-mo after their initial visit. HbA1c was determined at all visits (i.e., at screening and at the 3- and 6-mo follow-up visits) and quality of life and depressive symptoms were evaluated at the screening visit and were reassessed at the 6-mo visit.

RESULTS: Ten adolescents, recruited from a pool of approximately 200 adolescents, enrolled over a two-year time period, leading to premature termination of the study. In contrast, we easily recruited motivated lay volunteers. We found no change in HbA1c from the initial to the 6-mo visit in either group, yet our small sample size limited systematic assessment of this outcome. Participants repeatedly missed clinic appointments, failed to conduct self-glucose-monitoring and rarely brought their glucometers to clinic visits. Total quality of life scores (72.6 ± 6.06) at screening were similar to previously reported scores in adolescents with type 2 diabetes (75.7 ± 15.0) and lower than scores reported in normal-weight (81.2 ± 0.9), overweight (83.5 ± 1.8), and obese youths without diabetes (78.5 ± 1.8) or in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (80.5 ± 13.1). Among adolescents who returned for their 6-mo visit, there were no differences in total quality of life scores (70.2 ± 9.18) between screening and follow-up.

CONCLUSION: Our approach, effective in adults with type 2 diabetes, was unsuccessful among adolescents and emphasizes the need for innovative strategies for diabetes treatment in adolescent patients.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews

BACKGROUND

When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Epidemiological fallacies of modern psychiatric research

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric epidemiology is an important cornerstone of research in psychiatry and integral for the treatment and care of people suffering from psychiatric disorders. However, psychiatric epidemiology is a difficult science, which is often beset with methodological problems.

AIMS

In light of this, the current review sought to explore 13 of the common methodological issues in psychiatric epidemiology.

METHODS

Many methodological problems result from misunderstandings. As such, we sought to highlight these problems, provide evidence to counteract the myths surrounding these problems and subsequently provide recommendations to overcome these problems. To highlight and clarify these issues, examples are provided from current psychiatric literature.

RESULTS

Areas discussed in the review include problems with: taxonometry of disorders, sole reliance on self-reports, single-question diagnoses, baseline participation rates, measurement of lifetime prevalence, inconsistency of multiple informants, selection of covariates, testing of interactions, correction for multiple testing, the intermittent measurement of disorders during follow-up, evaluation of causal associations, data invalidation related to loss from follow-up and the publication of negative findings.

CONCLUSION

Many methodological myths prevail in the area of epidemiology and this review endeavoured to elucidate and clarify these. This review was developed as a teaching tool for students, clinicians and researchers.

Metallothionein and the biology of aging

Metallothionein (MT) is a low molecular weight protein with anti-apoptotic properties that has been demonstrated to scavenge free radicals in vitro. MT has not been extensively investigated within the context of aging biology. The purpose of this review, therefore, is to discuss findings on MT that are relevant to basic aging mechanisms and to draw attention to the possible role of MT in pro-longevity interventions. MT is one of just a handful of proteins that, when overexpressed, has been demonstrated to increase mouse lifespan. MT also protects against development of obesity in mice provided a high fat diet as well as diet-induced oxidative stress damage. Abundance of MT is responsive to caloric restriction (CR) and inhibition of the insulin/insulin-like signaling (IIS) pathway, and elevated MT gene expression has been observed in tissues from fasted and CR-fed mice, long-lived dwarf mice, worms maintained under CR conditions, and long-lived daf-2 mutant worms. The dysregulation of MT in these systems is likely to have tissue-specific effects on aging outcomes. Further investigation will therefore be needed to understand how MT contributes to the response of invertebrates and mice to CR and the endocrine mutations studied by aging researchers.