MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4324274079 · doi:10.1136/ebm-2022-ebmlive.44

149 Factors relating to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada: a qualitative interview study

2022· article· en· W4324274079 sur OpenAlex
Richard A. Morrow, Barbara Mintzes, Garry Gray, Michael R. Law, Scott Garrison, Colin R. Dormuth

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAbstracts · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Établissements canadiensUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClinical trialQualitative researchAlternative medicineNonprobability samplingDrug trialFamily medicineGrounded theoryMedicineCoding (social sciences)PsychologyMedical educationSocial sciencePathologyEnvironmental healthSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

<h3>Objectives</h3> Clinical trials are essential for informing drug development and clinical practice, but many clinical trials are not published and positive trials are more likely to be published than negative trials. Systematic reviews have examined factors contributing to nonpublication of biomedical and health-related studies, based on reasons provided by investigators. However, the ambiguity of reasons commonly given for nonpublication, such as a lack of time or the low priority of a study, make these studies difficult to interpret. We conducted a qualitative interview study to investigate factors related to clinical trial reporting in Canada. The analysis reported in this abstract aimed to understand factors contributing to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada. We have separately published findings from these interviews relating to industry sponsor influence in clinical trial reporting. <h3>Method</h3> Our study used a qualitative research design involving semi-structured, in-depth interviews. We conducted the interviews between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. We used purposive sampling to include clinical trial investigators from a range of fields, past trial participants from trials of treatments for a variety of medical conditions, and others involved in the conduct, administration or ethical review of clinical trials. Analysis of interview transcripts was informed by grounded theory. Initial coding involved developing provisional codes to characterize processes relating to clinical trial reporting. Focused coding and memo-writing were used to identify key themes. <h3>Results</h3> The study included 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, 3 research ethics board members, and 10 clinical trial participants. Several factors contribute to nonpublication and publication bias in trial research. A core theme was that reporting practices are shaped by incentives within the research system which favour publication of positive over negative trials. Investigators are discouraged from reporting by experiences or perceptions of difficulty in publishing negative findings but rewarded for publishing positive findings in various ways. Publication of positive trials may be more likely to lead to funding from industry sponsors and nonindustry funders. Research institutions play a role in incentivizing publication of positive trials, by rewarding researchers who attract funding and publish in prestigious journals, through promotion, bonuses, and recognition. Policies to promote trial reporting have been too weak and inconsistent to counterbalance the prevailing incentives that lead to nonpublication and publication bias. <h3>Conclusions</h3> While a range of factors contribute to nonpublication and publication bias, our study suggests that clinical trial reporting practices in Canada are shaped by incentives which favour publication of positive over negative trials. Canadian universities and research institutions could help change incentives by more widely adopting performance metrics that emphasize full reporting of trial results in journals or registries. It may also be valuable for research institutions to implement programs to support researchers to report results in trial registries in a timely manner, which could be modelled on strategies used at some US medical schools to improve compliance with regulatory requirements to report clinical trials. Health Canada could also play a central role in changing incentives by adopting regulatory measures to require timely reporting of results within a recognized clinical trial registry.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,196
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,292
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,122
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,828

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1960,292
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,691
Tête enseignante GPT0,591
Écart entre enseignants0,100 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle