Comparison of Publication of Pediatric Probiotic vs Antibiotic Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials. Objectives: To compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020. Exposures: Probiotic or antibiotic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated. Results: A total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.239 | 0.585 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".