Dataset Information

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. CONCLUSIONS:Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.

SUBMITTER: Kasenda B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4924795 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Kasenda Benjamin B von Elm Erik E You John J JJ Blümle Anette A Tomonaga Yuki Y Saccilotto Ramon R Amstutz Alain A Bengough Theresa T Meerpohl Joerg J JJ Stegert Mihaela M Olu Kelechi K KK Tikkinen Kari A O KA Neumann Ignacio I Carrasco-Labra Alonso A Faulhaber Markus M Mulla Sohail M SM Mertz Dominik D Akl Elie A EA Bassler Dirk D Busse Jason W JW Ferreira-González Ignacio I Lamontagne Francois F Nordmann Alain A Gloy Viktoria V Raatz Heike H Moja Lorenzo L Ebrahim Shanil S Schandelmaier Stefan S Sun Xin X Vandvik Per O PO Johnston Bradley C BC Walter Martin A MA Burnand Bernard B Schwenkglenks Matthias M Hemkens Lars G LG Bucher Heiner C HC Guyatt Gordon H GH Briel Matthias M

PLoS medicine 20160628 6

<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees.<h4>Methods and findin ...[more]

PMID: 27352244

Similar Datasets

Project description:Collaboration between academia and industry is a growing phenomenon within the chemistry community. These sectors have long held strong ties since academia traditionally trains the future scientists of the corporate world, but the recent drastic decrease of public funding is motivating the academic world to seek more private grants. This concept of industrial "sponsoring" is not new, and in the past, some companies granted substantial amounts of money per annum to various academic institutions in exchange for prime access to all their scientific discoveries and inventions. However, academic and industrial interests were not always aligned, and therefore the investment has become increasingly difficult to justify from industry's point of view. With fluctuating macroeconomic factors, this type of unrestricted grant has become more rare and has been largely replaced by smaller and more focused partnerships. In our view, forging a partnership with industry can be a golden opportunity for both parties and can represent a true symbiosis. This type of project-specific collaboration is engendered by industry's desire to access very specific academic expertise that is required for the development of new technologies at the forefront of science. Since financial pressures do not allow companies to spend the time to acquire this expertise and even less to explore fundamental research, partnering with an academic laboratory whose research is related to the problem gives them a viable alternative. From an academic standpoint, it represents the perfect occasion to apply "pure science" research concepts to solve problems that benefit humanity. Moreover, it offers a unique opportunity for students to face challenges from the "real world" at an early stage of their career. Although not every problem in industry can be solved by research developments in academia, we argue that there is significant scientific overlap between these two seemingly disparate groups, thereby presenting an opportunity for a symbiosis. This type of partnership is challenging but can be a win-win situation if both parties agree on some general guidelines, including clearly defined goals and deliverables, biweekly meetings to track research progress, and quarterly or annual meetings to recognize overarching, common objectives. This Account summarizes our personal experience concerning collaborations with various industrial groups and the way it impacted the research programs for both sides in a symbiotic fashion.

Project description:ImportancePublishing study protocols might reduce research waste because of unclear methods or incomplete reporting; on the other hand, there might be few additional benefits of publishing protocols for registered trials that are never completed or published. No study has investigated the proportion of published protocols associated with published results.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of published trial protocols for which there are not associated published results.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used stratified random sampling to identify registered clinical trials with protocols published between January 2011 and August 2022 and indexed in PubMed Central. Ongoing studies and those within 1 year of the primary completion date on ClinicalTrials.gov were excluded. Published results were sought from August 2022 to March 2023 by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, emailing authors, and using an automated tool, as well as through incidental discovery.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a weighted estimate of the proportion of registered trials with published protocols that also had published main results. The proportion of trials with unpublished results was estimated using a weighted mean.ResultsFrom 1500 citations that were screened, 308 clinical trial protocols were included, and it was found that 87 trials had not published their main results. Most included trials were investigator-initiated evaluations of nonregulated products. When published, results appeared a mean (SD) of 3.4 (2.0) years after protocol publications. With the use of a weighted mean, an estimated 4754 (95% CI, 4296-5226) eligible clinical trial protocols were published and indexed in PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022. In the weighted analysis, 1708 of those protocols (36%; 95% CI, 31%-41%) were not associated with publication of main results. In a sensitivity analysis excluding protocols published after 2019, an estimated 25% (95% CI, 20%-30%) of 3670 (95% CI, 3310-4032) protocol publications were not associated with publication of main results.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study of clinical trial protocols published on PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022 suggests that many protocols were not associated with subsequent publication of results. The overall benefits of publishing study protocols might outweigh the research waste caused by unnecessary protocol publications.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications.DesignCohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications.SettingSix research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.Data sources894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications.ResultsOf 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis.ConclusionsSubgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Project description:ImportanceDuplicate publications of randomized clinical trials are prevalent in the health-related literature. To date, few studies have assessed the interaction between duplicate publication and the language of the original publication.ObjectiveTo assess the existence of duplicate publication and the extent to which duplicate publication is associated with the language of the original publication.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, eligible randomized clinical trials were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible randomized clinical trials were for drug interventions from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. The trial registries were either primary registries recognized by the World Health Organization or the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration.ExposuresIndividual randomized clinical trials with positive vs negative results.Main outcomes and measuresJournal articles were classified as main articles (determined by largest sample size and longest follow-up among all journal articles derived from that randomized clinical trial) and duplicates. The duplicates were classified into 4 types: (1) unreferenced subgroup analysis (article did not disclose itself as a subgroup analysis or reference its main article); (2) unreferenced republication (article did not disclose itself as a replicate of the main article or reference it); (3) unreferenced interim analysis (article did not disclose itself as an interim analysis or reference its main article); and (4) partial duplicate (article did not disclose its sharing a subset of participants with other articles or reference them).ResultsAmong 470 randomized clinical trials published by August 2019 as journal articles, 55 (11.7%) had 75 duplicates, of which 53 (70.7%) were cross-language duplicates. Of the 75 duplicates, 33 (44.0%) were unreferenced republications, 25 (33.3%) unreferenced subgroup analyses, 15 (20.0%) unreferenced interim analyses, and 2 (2.7%) partial duplicates. When the main article of a randomized clinical trial was published in Chinese, those with positive findings were 2.48 (95% CI, 1.08-5.71) times more likely to have subsequent duplicate publication than those with negative findings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, most duplicates were cross-language duplicates and the most common type was unreferenced republication of the main article. Duplicate publication bias exists when the main articles of randomized clinical trials were published in Chinese, potentially misleading readers and compromising journals and evidence synthesis.

Dataset Information

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Publications

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets