Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials

Selective Publication within Vascular Surgery: Characteristics of Discontinued and Unpublished Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Discontinued and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are common resulting in biased publication and loss of potential knowledge. The magnitude of selective publication within vascular surgery remains unknown.

METHODS

RCT relevant to vascular surgery registered (01/01/2010-10/31/2019) on ClinicalTrials.gov were included. Trials ending normally with conclusion of participant treatment and examination were considered completed whereas discontinued trials stopped early. Publications were identified through automatically indexed PubMed citations on ClinicalTrials.gov or manually identified on PubMed or Google Scholar >30 months after the completion date, the date the final participant was examined, allowing time for publication.

RESULTS

Of 108 RCT (n = 37, 837), 22.2% (24/108) were discontinued, including 16.7% (4/24) stopped prior to and 83.3% (20/24) after starting enrollment. Only 28.4% of estimated enrollment was achieved for all discontinued RCT. Nineteen (79.2%) investigators provided a reason for discontinuation, which most commonly included poor enrollment (45.8%), inadequate supplies or funding (12.5%), and trial design concerns (8.3%). Of the 20 trials terminated following enrollment, 20.0% (4/20) were published in peer-reviewed journals and 80.0% (16/20) failed to reach publication. Of the 77.8% trials completed, 75.0% (63/84) were published and 25.0% (21/84) remain unpublished. In a multivariate regression of completed trials, industry funding was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of peer-reviewed publication (OR = 0.18, (95% CI 0.05-0.71), P = 0.01). Of the discontinued and completed trials remaining unpublished, 62.5% and 61.9% failed to report results on ClinicalTrials.gov, respectively, encompassing a total of 4,788 enrollees without publicly available results.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 25% of registered vascular RCT were discontinued. Of completed RCT, 25% remain unpublished with industry funding associated with decreased likelihood of publication. This study identifies opportunities to report all findings for completed and discontinued vascular surgery RCT, whether industry sponsored, or investigator initiated.

Are investigators' access to trial data and rights to publish restricted and are potential trial participants informed about this? A comparison of trial protocols and informed consent materials

OBJECTIVES

To determine to which degree industry partners in randomised clinical trials own the data and can constrain publication rights of academic investigators.

METHODS

Cohort study of trial protocols, publication agreements and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests, for a sample of 42 trials with industry involvement approved by ethics committees in Denmark. The main outcome measures used were: proportion of trials where data was owned by the industry partner, where the investigators right to publish were constrained and if this was mentioned in informed consent documents, and where the industry partner could review data while the trial was ongoing and stop the trial early.

RESULTS

The industry partner owned all data in 20 trials (48%) and in 16 trials (38%) it was unclear. Publication constraints were described for 30 trials (71%) and this was not communicated to trial participants in informed consent documents in any of the trials. In eight trials (19%) the industry partner could review data during the trial, for 20 trials (48%) it was unclear. The industry partner could stop the trial early without any specific reason in 23 trials (55%).

CONCLUSIONS

Publication constraints are common, and data is often owned by industry partners. This is rarely communicated to trial participants. Such constraints might contribute to problems with selective outcome reporting. Patients should be fully informed about these aspects of trial conduct.

Review of the Current Evidence for Topical Treatment for Venous Leg Ulcers

OBJECTIVE

The development of a venous leg ulcer (VLU) represents the most severe clinical manifestation of a chronic venous disease. Despite major progress, there is a limited understanding of VLU pathogenesis and wound healing biology. Treatment of VLUs remains a serious challenge for physicians of different specialties. This communication focuses on describing the rationale and scientific basis for topical wound care in the management of VLUs.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to summarize methods with proven efficacy in VLU management. A systematic literature search was also performed to identify new evidence from the randomized controlled trials published within 2014-2021. The scientific challenges, clinical practice concerns, economic obstacles, and possible directions for further research have been discussed.

RESULTS

Hundreds of topical products have been advertised for the treatment of VLUs. Published data on topical treatment of venous ulcers is insufficient, scattered, weak, and has significant methodological flaws. Forty-three randomized controlled trials on topical treatment of VLUs have been published within 2014-2021. Clinical practice guidelines need to be updated. Major gaps in knowledge have been identified, and suggestions for future research directions have been provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The American Venous Forum Research Committee would like to bring attention to topical wound care for VLUs as a critical gap in knowledge, and encourage scientists, practitioners, and industry to collaborate to fill this gap.

Beyond financial conflicts of interest: Institutional oversight of faculty consulting agreements at schools of medicine and public health

IMPORTANCE

Approximately one-third of U.S. life sciences faculty engage in industry consulting. Despite reports that consulting contracts often impinge on faculty and university interests, institutional approaches to regulating consulting agreements are largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the nature of institutional oversight of faculty consulting contracts at U.S. schools of medicine and public health.

DESIGN

Structured telephone interviews with institutional administrators. Questions included the nature of oversight for faculty consulting agreements, if any, and views about consulting as a private versus institutional matter. Interviews were analyzed using a structured coding scheme.

SETTING

All accredited schools of medicine and public health in the U.S.

PARTICIPANTS

Administrators responsible for faculty affairs were identified via internet searches and telephone and email follow-up. The 118 administrators interviewed represented 73% of U.S. schools of medicine and public health, and 75% of those invited to participate.

INTERVENTION

Structured, 15-30 minute telephone interviews.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence and type of institutional oversight; responses to concerning provisions in consulting agreements; perceptions of institutional oversight.

RESULTS

One third of institutions (36%) required faculty to submit at least some agreements for institutional review and 36% reviewed contracts upon request, while 35% refused to review contracts. Among institutions with review, there was wide variation the issues covered. The most common topic was intellectual property rights (64%), while only 23% looked at publication rights and 19% for inappropriately broad confidentiality provisions. Six in ten administrators reported they had no power to prevent faculty from signing consulting agreements. Although most respondents identified institutional risks from consulting relationships, many maintained that consulting agreements are "private."

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Oversight of faculty consulting agreements at U.S. schools of medicine and public health is inconsistent across institutions and usually not robust. The interests at stake suggest the need for stronger oversight.

Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors

OBJECTIVES

To determine the role of academic authors, funders, and contract research organisations in industry funded trials of vaccines, drugs, and devices and to determine lead academic authors' experiences with industry funder collaborations.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis of trial publications and survey of lead academic authors.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

The most recent 200 phase III and IV trials of vaccines, drugs, and devices with full industry funding, at least one academic author, published in one of the top seven high impact general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and PLoS Medicine).

RESULTS

Employees of industry funders co-authored 173 (87%) of publications; 183 (92%) trials reported involvement of funders in design, and 167 (84%) reported involvement of academic authors. Data analysis involved the funder in 146 (73%) trials and the academic authors in 79 (40%). Trial reporting involved the funder in 173 (87%) trials and academic authors in 197 (99%). Contract research organisations were involved in the reporting of 123 (62%) trials.Eighty (40%) of 200 lead academic authors responded to the survey. Twenty nine (33%) of the 80 responders reported that academics had final say on the design. Ten responders described involvement of an unnamed funder and/or contract research organisation employee in the data analysis and/or reporting. Most academic authors found the collaboration with industry funder beneficial, but 3 (4%) experienced delay in publication due to the industry funder and 9 (11%) reported disagreements with the industry funder, mostly concerning trial design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry employees and academic authors are involved in the design, conduct, and reporting of most industry funded trials in high impact journals. However, data analysis is often conducted without academic involvement. Academics view the collaboration as beneficial, but some report loss of academic freedom.

Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Recognizing the value of promoting public access to clinical trial protocols, Trials pioneered the way for their publication over a decade ago. However, despite major advances in the public accessibility of information about trial methods and results, protocol sharing remains relatively rare.

MAIN BODY

Protocol sharing facilitates the critical appraisal of clinical trials and helps to identify and deter the selective reporting of outcomes and analyses. Challenges to the routine availability of high quality trial protocols include the gaps in incentives and adherence mechanisms, limited venues for sharing the original and final protocol versions, and the need for mechanisms to ensure transparent and complete protocol content.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose recommendations for addressing key challenges to protocol sharing in order to promote routine public access to protocols for the benefit of patients and other users of evidence from clinical trials.

A Bayesian nonparametric test of significance chasing biases

There is a growing concern that much of the published research literature is distorted by the pursuit of statistically significant results. In a seminal article, Ioannidis and Trikalinos (2007, Clinical Trials) proposed an omnibus (I&T) test for significance chasing (SC) biases. This test compares the observed number of studies that report statistically significant results, against their expected number based on study power, assuming a common effect size across studies. The current article extends this approach by developing a Bayesian nonparametric (BNP) meta-regression model and test of SC bias, which can diagnose bias at the individual study level. This new BNP test is based on a flexible model of the predictive distribution of study power, conditionally on study-level covariates which account for study diversity, including diversity due to heterogeneous effect sizes across studies. A test of SC bias proceeds by comparing each study's significant outcome report indicator against its estimated posterior predictive distribution of study power, conditionally on the study's covariates. The BNP model and SC bias test are illustrated through the analyses of 3 meta-analytic data sets and through a simulation study. Software code for the BNP model and test, and the data sets, are provided as Supporting Information.

Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance

OBJECTIVES

To provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information.

METHODS

We addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.

RESULTS

Of 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.

CONCLUSION

Although the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

Publication bias and the canonization of false facts

Science is facing a “replication crisis” in which many experimental findings cannot be replicated and are likely to be false. Does this imply that many scientific facts are false as well? To find out, we explore the process by which a claim becomes fact. We model the community’s confidence in a claim as a Markov process with successive published results shifting the degree of belief. Publication bias in favor of positive findings influences the distribution of published results. We find that unless a sufficient fraction of negative results are published, false claims frequently can become canonized as fact. Data-dredging, p-hacking, and similar behaviors exacerbate the problem. Should negative results become easier to publish as a claim approaches acceptance as a fact, however, true and false claims would be more readily distinguished. To the degree that the model reflects the real world, there may be serious concerns about the validity of purported facts in some disciplines.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21451.001

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.