Publication rate and research topics of studies in pediatric kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The quality of medical care for pediatric kidney transplant recipients depends on sound evidence from published clinical trials.

METHODS

We examined the publication rate, time to publication, and factors associated with publication of studies in pediatric kidney transplantation registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 1999 to 2020.

RESULTS

We identified 136 studies with an overall enrollment of 36255 study participants, of which only 58.8% have been published yet. Unpublished studies included data from 14 350 participants. The median time to publication was 25 months (range, 0-117) with a significantly shorter time to publication in more recent years. The most frequently investigated research topic was immunosuppressants (49.3%), followed by perioperative management (11.0%) and infectiology (10.3%). The percentage of published studies was highest for the topic steroid withdrawal (87.5%), followed by infectiology (78.6%), and nutrition, sports and quality of life (71.4%). Studies, which were co-funded by industry, showed a significantly higher 5-year publication rate (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, nearly half of all studies in pediatric kidney transplantation remain unpublished. Non-publication of studies might lead to a publication bias with a negative impact on clinical decision-making.

Is statistician involvement as co-author associated with reduced time to publication of quantitative research in general medical journals? A bibliometric study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the number of submissions until acceptance and the time to publication between articles co-authored and articles not co-authored by statisticians.

METHODS

We randomly selected 781 articles published in 2016 in 18 high impact factor journals of general internal medicine and primary care. For each article, we retrieved its date of submission to the journal and its first publication; we also contacted its corresponding author and asked about the number of submissions necessary from the first submission to a journal until acceptance and whether the article was co-authored by a statistician. After having excluded qualitative studies, we compared the articles co-authored with those not co-authored by statisticians in terms of number of submissions and submission-to-publication time, using negative binomial and Cox regressions, adjusted for intracluster correlations.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-eight authors completed the questionnaire (20%); 136 articles with quantitative design were included in the study. Overall, 63 articles (46%) were co-authored by statisticians. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of submissions (statistician group: mean 2.1 (SD 1.1) versus 2.2 (SD 1.2), P value 0.87). By contrast, we found a statistically significant difference in the submission-to-publication time (statistician group: median 211 days [interquartile range (IQR) 171] versus 260 (IQR 144); hazard ratio 1.44 (95% CI 1.01-2.03), adjusted P value 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Papers co-authored by statisticians have a shorter time to publication. We encourage researchers to closely involve statisticians in the design, conduct and statistical analysis of research, not only to ensure high standards of quality but also to speed up its publication.

Publication patterns of cancer cost-effectiveness studies presented at major conferences

OBJECTIVE

To be useful to policymakers and stakeholders, cost-effectiveness analyses (ceas) should be published in a timely manner and without bias. The aims of the present study were to examine the time between conference abstract presentation and subsequent publication, to determine the factors associated with time to publication, to evaluate potential publication bias, and to examine discrepancies in the results between abstract and publication.

METHODS

Abstracts of ceas presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (asco), the American Society of Hematology (ash), and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ispor) between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed. Time-to-event analysis was performed to assess the timeliness of publication and to examine factors associated with time to publication. Summary statistics were used to assess discrepancies in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) between abstract and publication.

RESULTS

Of 164 abstracts identified, 65 (39.6%) were subsequently published. The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year publication rates were 12.8%, 25%, 34.2%, and 40.5% respectively. Abstracts were more likely to be published if presented at asco than at ispor (hazard ratio: 1.94; p = 0.038). There was no direct evidence of publication bias for abstracts with favourable icers. Comparing icers between abstracts and publications, the mean absolute difference was 23.8%; 50% of studies had a change in icer exceeding 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication rates for ceas were low, and publication was not timely with respect to informing the decision-making process for funding. Abstract results often differed from publication results and cannot reliably be used in the decision-making process for funding.