Effective publication strategies in clinical research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Deutz DB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6992234 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effective publication strategies in clinical research.
Deutz Daniella B DB Vlachos Evgenios E Drongstrup Dorte D Dorch Bertil F BF Wien Charlotte C
PloS one 20200130 1
Researchers in Europe are increasingly assessed by their publication metrics. To uncover the effect of quantitative assessment on the publication strategies of clinical researchers in Denmark, we interviewed 9 senior researchers at the Department of Clinical Research at the University of Southern Denmark with the lowest and highest values for a, as defined by Hirsch. Our aim is to investigate the importance of these metrics to their academic careers: h-index, number of publications, number of ci ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe failure to retain patients or collect primary-outcome data is a common challenge for trials and reduces the statistical power and potentially introduces bias into the analysis. Identifying strategies to minimise missing data was the second highest methodological research priority in a Delphi survey of the Directors of UK Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and is important to minimise waste in research. Our aim was to assess the current retention practices within the UK and priorities for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reduce attrition.MethodsSeventy-five chief investigators of NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials starting between 2009 and 2012 were surveyed to elicit their awareness about causes of missing data within their trial and recommended practices for improving retention. Forty-seven CTUs registered within the UKCRC network were surveyed separately to identify approaches and strategies being used to mitigate missing data across trials. Responses from the current practice surveys were used to inform a subsequent two-round Delphi survey with registered CTUs. A consensus list of retention research strategies was produced and ranked by priority.ResultsFifty out of seventy-five (67%) chief investigators and 33/47 (70%) registered CTUs completed the current practice surveys. Seventy-eight percent of trialists were aware of retention challenges and implemented strategies at trial design. Patient-initiated withdrawal was the most common cause of missing data. Registered CTUs routinely used newsletters, timeline of participant visits, and telephone reminders to mitigate missing data. Whilst 36 out of 59 strategies presented had been formally or informally evaluated, some frequently used strategies, such as site initiation training, have had no research to inform practice. Thirty-five registered CTUs (74%) participated in the Delphi survey. Research into the effectiveness of site initiation training, frequency of patient contact during a trial, the use of routinely collected data, the frequency and timing of reminders, triggered site training and the time needed to complete questionnaires was deemed critical. Research into the effectiveness of Christmas cards for site staff was not of critical importance.ConclusionThe surveys of current practices demonstrates that a variety of strategies are being used to mitigate missing data but with little evidence to support their use. Six retention strategies were deemed critically important within the Delphi survey and should be a primary focus of future retention research.
| S-EPMC5580283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research has the potential to influence US social policy; however, existing research in this area lacks a coherent message. The Model for Dissemination of Research provides a framework through which to synthesize lessons learned from research to date on the process of translating research to US policymakers. METHODS:The peer-reviewed and grey literature was systematically reviewed to understand common strategies for disseminating social policy research to policymakers in the United States. We searched Academic Search Premier, PolicyFile, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science from January 1980 through December 2019. Articles were independently reviewed and thematically analyzed by two investigators and organized using the Model for Dissemination of Research. RESULTS:The search resulted in 5225 titles and abstracts for inclusion consideration. 303 full-text articles were reviewed with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. Common sources of research dissemination included government, academic researchers, the peer reviewed literature, and independent organizations. The most frequently disseminated research topics were health-related, and legislators and executive branch administrators were the most common target audience. Print materials and personal communication were the most common channels for disseminating research to policymakers. There was variation in dissemination channels by level of government (e.g., a more formal legislative process at the federal level compared with other levesl). Findings from this work suggest that dissemination is most effective when it starts early, galvanizes support, uses champions and brokers, considers contextual factors, is timely, relevant, and accessible, and knows the players and process. CONCLUSIONS:Effective dissemination of research to US policymakers exists; yet, rigorous quantitative evaluation is rare. A number of cross-cutting strategies appear to enhance the translation of research evidence into policy. REGISTRATION:Not registered.
| S-EPMC7560305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bringing new therapies to patients with rare diseases depends in part on optimizing clinical trial conduct through efficient study start-up processes and rapid enrollment. Suboptimal execution of clinical trials in academic medical centers not only results in high cost to institutions and sponsors, but also delays the availability of new therapies. Addressing the factors that contribute to poor outcomes requires novel, systematic approaches tailored to the institution and disease under study.To use clinical trial performance metrics data analysis to select high-performing cystic fibrosis (CF) clinical research teams and then identify factors contributing to their success.Mixed-methods research, including semi-structured qualitative interviews of high-performing research teams.CF research teams at nine clinical centers from the CF Foundation Therapeutics Development Network.Survey of site characteristics, direct observation of team meetings and facilities, and semi-structured interviews with clinical research team members and institutional program managers and leaders in clinical research.Critical success factors noted at all nine high-performing centers were: 1) strong leadership, 2) established and effective communication within the research team and with the clinical care team, and 3) adequate staff. Other frequent characteristics included a mature culture of research, customer service orientation in interactions with study participants, shared efficient processes, continuous process improvement activities, and a businesslike approach to clinical research.Clinical research metrics allowed identification of high-performing clinical research teams. Site visits identified several critical factors leading to highly successful teams that may help other clinical research teams improve clinical trial performance.
| S-EPMC4124113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Concerns exist within the medical and psychological sciences that many published research findings are not replicable. Guidelines accordingly recommend that the file drawer effect should be eliminated and that statistical significance should not be a criterion in the decision to submit and publish scientific results. By means of a simulation study, we show that selectively publishing effects that differ significantly from the cumulative meta-analytic effect evokes the Proteus phenomenon of poorly replicable and alternating findings. However, the simulation also shows that the selective publication approach yields a scientific record that is content rich as compared to publishing everything, in the sense that fewer publications are needed for obtaining an accurate meta-analytic estimation of the true effect. We conclude that, under the assumption of self-correcting science, the file drawer effect can be beneficial for the scientific collective.
| S-EPMC3688764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration.Design and settingWe included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020.MethodsWe extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators.ResultsOf 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%).ConclusionsIn Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular.
| S-EPMC9880919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResults of medical research should be made publicly available in a timely manner to enable patients and health professionals to make informed decisions about health issues. We aimed to apply a multi-state model to analyze the overall time needed to publish study results, and to examine predictors of the timing of transitions within the research process from study initiation through completion/discontinuation to eventual publication.MethodsUsing a newly developed multi-state model approach, we analysed the effect of different study-related factors on each of the transitions from study approval to eventual publication, using a data set of clinical studies approved by a German research ethics committee between 2000 and 2002.ResultsOf 917 approved studies, 806 were included in our analyses. About half of the clinical studies which began were subsequently published as full articles, and the median time from study approval to publication was 10 years. Differences across model states were apparent; several factors were predictive of the transition from study approval to completion, while funding source and collaboration were predictive of the transition from completion to publication.ConclusionsThe proposed multi-state model approach permits a more comprehensive analysis of time to publication than a simple examination of the transition from approval to publication, and thus the findings represent an advance on previous studies of this aspect of the research process.
| S-EPMC7100954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.
| S-EPMC3651300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We document the growth in published papers on behavioral genetics for 5-year intervals from 1960 through 2014. We used 1861 papers published in Behavior Genetics to train our search strategy which, when applied to Ovid PsychINFO, selected more than 45,000 publications. Five trends stand out: (1) the number of behavioral genetic publications has grown enormously; nearly 20,000 papers were published in 2010-2014. (2) The number of human quantitative genetic (QG) publications (e.g., twin and adoption studies) has steadily increased with more than 3000 papers published in 2010-2014. (3) The number of human molecular genetic (MG) publications increased substantially from about 2000 in 2000-2004 to 5000 in 2005-2009 to 9000 in 2010-2014. (4) Nonhuman publications yielded similar trends. (5) Although there has been exponential growth in MG publications, both human and nonhuman QG publications continue to grow. A searchable resource of this corpus of behavioral genetic papers is freely available online at http://www.teds.ac.uk/public_datasets.html and will be updated annually.
| S-EPMC5206393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: To investigate the trends and progresses in glaucoma research by searching two major clinical trial registries; clinicaltrials.gov, and Australianclinicaltrials.gov.au. Methods: All clinical trials with glaucoma covered by Clinicaltrials.gov, and Australianclinicaltrials.gov.au starting the study before 1 January 2021 were included. Trials evaluating glaucoma treatment were separated from non-treatment trials and divided into three major categories: "laser treatment," "surgical treatment," and "medical treatment." In the category of "medical treatment," new compounds and their individual targets were identified and subcategorized according to treatment strategy; intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering, neuroprotective or vascular. The phase transition success rates were calculated. Results: One-thousand five hundred and thirty-seven trials were identified. Sixty-three percent (n = 971) evaluated glaucoma treatment, of which medical treatment accounted for the largest proportion (53%). The majority of medical trials evaluated IOP-lowering compounds, while trials with neuroprotective or vascular compounds accounted for only 5 and 3%, respectively. Eighty-eight new compounds were identified. Phase I, II, and III transition success rates were 63, 26, and 47%, respectively. Conclusion: The number of clinical trials in glaucoma research has increased significantly over the last 30 years. Among the most recently evaluated compounds, all three main treatment strategies were represented, but clinical trials in neuroprotection and vascular modalities are still sparse. In addition to traditional medicines, dietary supplements and growth factors are assessed for a potential anti-glaucomatous effect. Phase II and III success rates were below previously reported success rates for all diseases and ophthalmology in general. A stricter phenotyping of patients can improve the success rates in glaucoma and ophthalmological research and gain a better understanding of responders and non-responders.
| S-EPMC8473801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore influences of co-investigators on the successful publication of a pharmacy residency project.We analyzed published and non-published research presented at a regional pharmacy conference. Abstracts were matched 1:1 based on state and abstract year. We assessed university affiliation, number, degree, and H-Index of co-investigators on the abstract. Descriptive and inferential analyses were used to identify variables associated with resident publication.University-affiliated programs (p=0.015), highest H-Index of a non-physician co-investigator (p=0.002), and positive H-Index (≥1) of a non-physician co-investigator (p=0.017) were significant predictors of resident publication on univariate analyses. There were no differences in the number of co-investigators (p=0.051), projects with physician co-investigators (p=1.000), or projects with Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or Master of Science (MS) co-investigators (p=0.536) between published and non-published projects. Multivariate analysis found that the highest H-index of non-physician co-investigator remained significant as a predictor to resident publication (odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.01-1.17).The quality of co-investigators, as measured by an increasing H-Index, is associated with the successful publication of residency projects. More emphasis may need to be placed on resident research co-investigator selection and training to prepare pharmacy residents for research and scholarly activity.
| S-EPMC5499349 | biostudies-other