Dataset Information

[The publication of clinical trial results by German universities is insufficient-this should change].

ABSTRACT: The results of all clinical drug trials should be published promptly and nonselectively after trial completion. The publication of results appears as a central ethical rule in the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association. German university hospitals are increasingly being criticized for not meeting these requirements sufficiently.In this article, different forms of publication of clinical drug trial results are discussed (summary results on registries and journal articles) and the current performance of German university hospitals is analyzed. Three registries and databases for clinical studies were examined for publication of summary results: the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR), the US registry ClinicalTrials.gov and the exclusively German language portal PharmNet.Bund. Positions of different stakeholders are outlined and possible steps for improvement are proposed.German university hospitals do not sufficiently fulfil their regulatory and ethical obligations regarding the publication of clinical drug trial results. Two years after the study completion date, two thirds of the studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov that were completed from 2010-2014 had not yet published results in scientific journals and only 4.7% had posted summary results in the registry. In the European trial registry, the publication rate in the form of summary results has been found to be less than 7%. Less than 15% of relevant entries in the PharmNet.Bund database have results available.In order to improve the reporting performance of German university hospitals, political will and commitment of the hospitals themselves are needed. The benefits of access to all clinical drug trial results for public health and science far outweigh the (marginal) additional investments that university hospitals have to make to ensure that all their trial results are made public in line with regulatory and ethical requirements.

SUBMITTER: Grabitz P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7686199 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

[The publication of clinical trial results by German universities is insufficient-this should change].

Grabitz Peter P Brückner Till T Strech Daniel D

Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz 20201111 12

The results of all clinical drug trials should be published promptly and nonselectively after trial completion. The publication of results appears as a central ethical rule in the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association. German university hospitals are increasingly being criticized for not meeting these requirements sufficiently.In this article, different forms of publication of clinical drug trial results are discussed (summary results on registries and journal articles) and th ...[more]

PMID: 33179131

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The complete and timely dissemination of clinical trial data is essential to all fields of medicine, with delayed or incomplete data release having potentially deleterious effects on both patient care and scientific inquiry. While prior analyses have noted a substantial lag in the reporting of final clinical study results, we sought to refine these observations through use of a novel starting point for the measurement of dissemination delays: the date of a corporate press release regarding a phase 3 study's results. Objective:To measure the length of time elapsed between when a sponsor had results of study findings they deemed important to announce, and when the medical community had access to them. Design and Setting:Covering the years 2011 through 2016, we measured the delay from when 8 large pharmaceutical companies issued a press release announcing completed analyses of phase 3 clinical trials in oncology, and the public sharing of those results either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal as found via PubMed or Google Scholar. Press releases announcing regulatory steps and presentation schedules for conferences were excluded, as were those announcing results from preclinical trials, follow-up analyses, and studies of supportive care therapies or various modes of infusion for the same therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:Time to public dissemination of clinical trial data. Results:Of the 100 press releases in our sample, 70 (70%) reported positive results, but only 31 (31%) included the magnitude of study findings. Through the end of follow-up, 99 (99%) of press releases had an associated peer-reviewed publication, complete data posting to ClinicalTrials.gov, or both, with a median time to reporting of 300 days (95% CI, 263-348 days). Positive findings were reported more quickly than negative ones (median of 272; 95% CI, 211-318 days vs 407; 95% CI, 298-705 days; log-rank P?<?.001). Conclusions and Relevance:Even for the most pressing study findings, median publication delays approach 1 year. As publication delays hinder research progress and advancements in clinical care, policies that enable early preprint release or public posting of completed data analysis should be pursued.

Project description:Clinical trial transparency forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine, and trial sponsors, especially publicly funded institutions such as universities, have an ethical and scientific responsibility to make the results of clinical trials publicly available in a timely fashion. We assessed whether the thirty UK universities receiving the most Medical Research Council funding in 2017-2018 complied with World Health Organization best practices for clinical trial reporting on the US Clinical Trial Registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov ). Firstly, we developed and evaluated a novel automated tracking tool ( clinical-trials-tracker.com ) for clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov . This tracker identifies the number of due trials (whose completion lies more than 395 days in the past) that have not reported results on the registry and can now be used for all sponsors. Secondly, we used the tracker to determine the number of due clinical trials sponsored by the selected UK universities in October 2020. Thirdly, using the FDAAA Trials Tracker, we identified trials sponsored by these universities that are not complying with reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 2007. Finally, we quantified the average and median number of days between primary completion date and results posting. In October 2020, the universities included in our study were sponsoring 1634 due trials, only 1.6% (n = 26) of which had reported results within a year of completion. 89.8% (n = 1468) of trials remained unreported, and 8.6% (n = 140) of trials reported results late. We also identified 687 trials that contained inconsistent data, suggesting that UK universities often fail to update their data adequately on ClinicalTrials.gov . The mean reporting delay after primary completion for trials that posted results was 981 days, the median 728 days. Only four trials by UK universities violated the FDAAA 2007. We suggest a number of reasons for the poor reporting performance of UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov : (i) efforts to improve clinical trial reporting in the UK have to date focused on the European clinical trial registry (EU CTR), (ii) the absence of a tracking tool for timely reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov has limited the visibility of institutions' reporting performance on the US registry and (iii) there is currently a lack of repercussions for UK sponsors who fail to report results on ClinicalTrials.gov which should be addressed in the future.

Project description:Background. Open access (OA) publishing via article processing charges (APCs) is growing as an alternative to subscription publishing. The Pay It Forward (PIF) Project is exploring the feasibility of transitioning from paying subscriptions to funding APCs for faculty at research intensive universities. Estimating of the cost of APCs for the journals authors at research intensive universities tend to publish is essential for the PIF project and similar initiatives. This paper presents our research into this question. Methods. We identified APC prices for publications by authors at the 4 research intensive United States (US) and Canadian universities involved in the study. We also obtained APC payment records from several Western European universities and funding agencies. Both data sets were merged with Web of Science (WoS) metadata. We calculated the average APCs for articles and proceedings in 13 discipline categories published by researchers at research intensive universities. We also identified 41 journals published by traditionally subscription publishers which have recently converted to APC funded OA and recorded the APCs they charge. Results. We identified 7,629 payment records from the 4 European APC payment databases and 14,356 OA articles authored by PIF partner university faculty for which we had listed APC prices. APCs for full OA journals published by PIF authors averaged 1,775 USD; full OA journal APCs paid by Western European funders averaged 1,865 USD; hybrid APCs paid by Western European funders averaged 2,887 USD. The APC for converted journals published by major subscription publishers averaged 1,825 USD. APC funded OA is concentrated in the life and basic sciences. APCs funded articles in the social sciences and humanities are often multidisciplinary and published in journals such as PLOS ONE that largely publish in the life sciences. Conclusions. Full OA journal APCs average a little under 2,000 USD while hybrid articles average about 3,000 USD for publications by researchers at research intensive universities. There is a lack of information on discipline differences in APCs due to the concentration of APC funded publications in a few fields and the multidisciplinary nature of research.

Dataset Information

[The publication of clinical trial results by German universities is insufficient-this should change].

Publications

[The publication of clinical trial results by German universities is insufficient-this should change].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure