"Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. ’Positive’ results were more
frequently published than not ’positive’ results."
"Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.
’Positive’ results defined as any ’significant’ result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did ’positive’ results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and ’positive’ results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30)."
"9 of 77 authors who explicitly stated in an abstract that treatment assignment had been randomized denied random treatment assignment when surveyed subsequently (Scherer 1994)."
"At least when patients are involved, this under-reporting constitutes scientific misconduct (Chalmers 1990b; Antes 2003). Most trial participants give consent to the risks involved in an experimental study under the assumption that they are making a contribution to science. If that study remains unpublished, their contribution is for nought. In addition, those who rely on the scientific literature to make health care decisions are faced with a biased subset of scientific evidence."
frequently published than not ’positive’ results."
"Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.
’Positive’ results defined as any ’significant’ result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did ’positive’ results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and ’positive’ results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30)."
"9 of 77 authors who explicitly stated in an abstract that treatment assignment had been randomized denied random treatment assignment when surveyed subsequently (Scherer 1994)."
"At least when patients are involved, this under-reporting constitutes scientific misconduct (Chalmers 1990b; Antes 2003). Most trial participants give consent to the risks involved in an experimental study under the assumption that they are making a contribution to science. If that study remains unpublished, their contribution is for nought. In addition, those who rely on the scientific literature to make health care decisions are faced with a biased subset of scientific evidence."
Shared publicly