8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tendencia de publicación de ensayos clínicos con resultados negativos financiados por industrias farmacéuticas durante el periodo 2007-2012 Translated title: Publication Trend of Clinical Trials with Negative Results Funded by Pharmaceutical industries for the 2007-2012 Period Translated title: Tendência de publicação de ensaios clínicos com resultados negativos financiados por indústrias farmacêuticas durante o período 2007-2012

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objetivo: Evaluar los resultados de ensayos clínicos financiados por la industria farmacéutica durante el periodo 2007-2012 en una revista médica general. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional de corte transversal donde se revisaron ensayos clínicos originales financiados por la industria farmacéutica publicados entre el año 2007 y 2012 en la revista The New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org). Se empleó la prueba de χ² de tendencia para evaluar los resultados de los estudios a través de los años. Se creó una base de datos con las diferentes variables, identificando el número de publicaciones y el periodo de mayor publicación de estudios negativos así como la especialidad médica e industria farmacéutica financiadora. Resultados: Se analizaron 321 ensayos clínicos. Se calculó el Odds Ratio para cada año evaluado, encontrando un χ² de tendencia lineal en estudios negativos de 2,91 con valor p 0,08 y en los estudios positivos de 1,16 con valor p 0,28. Se encontró que en el periodo 2007-2009 se publicaron 123 estudios, de los cuales el 40 % presentaron resultados negativos; a diferencia del periodo 2010-2012 en el cual se publicaron 198 ensayos clínicos, de los cuales 142 presentaron resultados negativos. OR 1,68 IC 95 % (1,02-2,78) valor p 0,03. El mayor año de publicación de estudios negativos fue el 2007 con 44,7%. Conclusiones: Se ha visto una disminución progresiva en el número de publicaciones con resultados negativos en general por año. No se encontró una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la publicación de estudios negativos por año entre el período 2007-2012. La especialidad médica con mayor número de publicaciones totales y negativas en los dos periodos fue cardiología y las industrias farmacéuticas que más patrocinaron ensayos clínicos totales y con resultados negativos en los dos periodos fueron Merck, Glaxo SmithKline y Sanofi-Aventis. El 50 % de las publicaciones de neurología mostraron resultados negativos.

          Translated abstract

          Objective: To evaluate the results of clinical trials financed by the pharmaceutical industries during the period 2007-2012 in a general medical journal. Materials and methods: We performed an observational cross sectional study where originals clinical trials financed by the pharmaceutical industry published between 2007 and 2012 in the journal The New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org) were reviewed. Trend χ² test was used to evaluate the results of studies over the years. A database was created with different variables, identifying the number of publications and the period of greater publishing negatives studies, as well as the medical specialty and pharmaceutical industry funding. Results: 321 clinical trials were analyzed. The Odds Ratio was calculated for each year evaluated, finding a χ²of linear trend in negatives studies of 2.91 with value p 0.08 and positive studies of 1.16 with value p 0.28. It was found that in the period 2007-2009 123 studies were published, 40% of which presented negative results; unlike the 2010-2012 period in which 198 clinical trials where published, 142 of them, showed positive results, OR 1.68, 95 % CI (1.02-2.78) value p 0.03. The highest figures of negative results were published in 2007: 44.7 %. Conclusions: A progressive decrease in the number of publications with annual general negative results has been observed. A statistically significant difference in the publication of negative studies per year was not found between the periods 2007-2012. The medical specialty that showed the largest number of total and negative publications in both periods was cardiology. The pharmaceutical industry that sponsored most total clinical trials with negative results in both periods did so through Merck, Glaxo SmithKline, and Sanofi-Aventis. 50 % of neurology publications showed negative results.

          Translated abstract

          Objetivo: avaliar os resultados de ensaios clínicos financiados pela indústria farmacêutica durante o período 2007-2012 em uma revista médica geral. Materiais e métodos: realizou-se um estudo observacional de corte transversal onde revisaram-se ensaios clínicos originais financiados pela indústria farmacêutica publicados entre o ano 2007 e o ano 2012 na revista The New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org). Empregou-se o teste do χ²de tendência para avaliar os resultados dos estudos através dos anos. Criou-se uma base de dados com as diferentes variáveis, identificando o número de publicações e o período de maior publicação de estudos negativos assim como a especialidade médica e indústria financiadora. Resultados: analisaram-se 321 ensaios clínicos. Calculou-se o Odds Ratio para cada ano avaliado, encontrando um χ² de tendência lineal em estudos negativos de 2,91 com valor p 0,08 e nos estudos positivos de 1,16 com valor p 0,28. Encontrou-se que no período 2007-2009 se publicaram 123 estudos, dos quais o 40% apresentaram resultados negativos; ao contrário do período 2010-2012 no qual se publicaram 198 ensaios clínicos, dos quais 142 apresentaram resultados negativos 1,68 IC 95% (1,02-2,78) valor p 0,03. O ano com maior quantidade de publicações de estudos negativos foi 2007 com 44,7%. Conclusões: Tem-se identificado uma diminuição progressiva no número de publicações com resultados negativos em geral por ano. Não se encontrou uma diferença estatisticamente significativa na publicação de estudos negativos por ano entre o período 2007-2012. A especialidade médica com maior número de publicações totais e negativos nos dois períodos foi cardiologia e as indústrias farmacêuticas que mais patrocinaram ensaios clínicos totais e com resultados negativos nos dois períodos foram Merck, Glaxo SmithKline e Sanofi-Aventis. O 50% das publicações de neurologia mostraram resultados negativos.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

          Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German.

            Some randomised controlled trials (RCTs) done in German-speaking Europe are published in international English-language journals and others in national German-language journals. We assessed whether authors are more likely to report trials with statistically significant results in English than in German. We studied pairs of RCT reports, matched for first author and time of publication, with one report published in German and the other in English. Pairs were identified from reports round in a manual search of five leading German-language journals and from reports published by the same authors in English found on Medline. Quality of methods and reporting were assessed with two different scales by two investigators who were unaware of authors' identities, affiliations, and other characteristics of trial reports. Main study endpoints were selected by two investigators who were unaware of trial results. Our main outcome was the number of pairs of studies in which the levels of significance (shown by p values) were discordant. 62 eligible pairs of reports were identified but 19 (31%) were excluded because they were duplicate publications. A further three pairs (5%) were excluded because no p values were given. The remaining 40 pairs were analysed. Design characteristics and quality features were similar for reports in both languages. Only 35% of German-language articles, compared with 62% of English-language articles, reported significant (p < 0.05) differences in the main endpoint between study and control groups (p = 0.002 by McNemar's test). Logistic regression showed that the only characteristic that predicted publication in an English-language journal was a significant result. The odds ratio for publication of trials with significant results in English was 3.75 (95% CI 1.25-11.3). Authors were more likely to publish RCTs in an English-language journal if the results were statistically significant. English language bias may, therefore, be introduced in reviews and meta-analyses if they include only trials reported in English. The effort of the Cochrane Collaboration to identify as many controlled trials as possible, through the manual search of many medical journals published in different languages will help to reduce such bias.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Publication Bias: A Problem in Interpreting Medical Data

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                recis
                Revista Ciencias de la Salud
                Rev. Cienc. Salud
                Editorial Universidad del Rosario (Bogotá )
                1692-7273
                January 2015
                : 13
                : 1
                : 55-62
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Investigaciones Sifam Colombia
                [2 ] Hospital Pablo Tobón Uribe (HPTU) Colombia
                Article
                S1692-72732015000100005
                10.12804/revsalud13.01.2015.04
                2fd60a8e-3fcf-452e-8399-2cc4f3aad1be

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Colombia

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=1692-7273&lng=en
                Categories
                PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

                Public health
                Clinical trial,Bias,Publication bias,Outcome assessment,Outcome,Ensaio clínico,viés,viés de publicação,avaliação de resultado,desenlace,Ensayo clínico,sesgo,sesgo de publicación,evaluación de resultado

                Comments

                Comment on this article