Getting our house in order: an audit of the registration and publication of clinical trials supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tompson AC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4785314 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Schistosomiasis remains a health burden in many parts of the world. The complex life cycle of Schistosoma parasites and the economic and societal conditions present in endemic areas make the prospect of eradication unlikely in the foreseeable future. Continued and vigorous research efforts must therefore be directed at this disease, particularly since only a single World Health Organization (WHO)-approved drug is available for treatment. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Schistosomiasis Resource Center (SRC) at the Biomedical Research Institute provides investigators with the critical raw materials needed to carry out this important research. The SRC makes available, free of charge (including international shipping costs), not only infected host organisms but also a wide array of molecular reagents derived from all life stages of each of the three main human schistosome parasites. As the field of schistosomiasis research rapidly advances, it is likely to become increasingly reliant on omics, transgenics, epigenetics, and microbiome-related research approaches. The SRC has and will continue to monitor and contribute to advances in the field in order to support these research efforts with an expanding array of molecular reagents. In addition to providing investigators with source materials, the SRC has expanded its educational mission by offering a molecular techniques training course and has recently organized an international schistosomiasis-focused meeting. This review provides an overview of the materials and services that are available at the SRC for schistosomiasis researchers, with a focus on updates that have occurred since the original overview in 2008.
| S-EPMC5072641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine 1) the publication rate of registered otology trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2) the public availability of the results, 3) the study characteristics associated with publication, and 4) the time to publication after trial completion.BackgroundPublication bias, the publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of results, is accountable for wrong treatment decisions. The extent of publication bias in otology trials has not been evaluated.MethodsAll registered otology trials were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov with completion date up to December 2015. A search strategy was used to identify corresponding publications up to June 2017, providing at least 18 months to publish the results after trial completion. Characteristics were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications. Regression models were used to examine study characteristics associated with publication or non-publication.ResultsFrom the 419 trials identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, 225 (53.7%) corresponding publications were found in PubMed. Among these, 109 (48.4%) publications were cited on ClinicalTrials.gov and 124 (55.1%) articles reported the National Clinical Trial registry number. For 36 (8.6%) trials, results were only reported in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials with a biological intervention were more likely to be published than studies involving drugs (odds ratio (OR) 10.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-86.22, P = 0.030). Trials funded by industry were less likely to be published (OR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.84, P = 0.011). The median trial duration was 20 months (interquartile range (IQR) 26 months), and median time from trial completion to publication was 24 months (IQR 22 months).ConclusionIn 37.7% of the registered otology trials the results remained unpublished, even several years after trial completion. With little citations on ClinicalTrials.gov and low reporting of the Clinical Trial registry number, the accessibility is limited. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in accuracy of trial registration and publication of results, in order to diminish publication bias in otology studies.
| S-EPMC6619790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We argue that the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine's 2011 report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity, are methodologically and ethically confused. We argue that a proper understanding of evolution and complexity theory in terms of the science and ethics of using chimpanzees in biomedical research would have had led the committee to recommend not merely limiting but eliminating the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. Specifically, we argue that a proper understanding of the difference between the gross level of examination of species and examinations on finer levels can shed light on important methodological and ethical inconsistencies leading to ignorance of potentially unethical practices and policies regarding the use of animals in scientific research.
| S-EPMC4033812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.
| S-EPMC7993305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine levels of public registration for a cohort of clinical trials reviewed and given a favourable opinion by research ethics committees in the United Kingdom. STUDY DESIGN:Audit of records. SETTING:Clinical trials receiving a favourable ethics opinion between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Correlation between trials on the UK research ethics committee database and any primary registry entry on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform or clinicaltrials.gov as of 29 August 2017 (14 to 20 months after the favourable ethics committee opinion). RESULTS:Over the study period 1014 trials received a favourable ethics opinion, with 397 (39%) registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, and 18 with an agreed clinical trial registration deferral. Excluding these trials, the total number subsequently requiring registration was 599, and of these 405 (40% of total) were found to be registered. Follow-up with the 194 investigators or sponsors of trials not found to be registered produced 121 responses with a further 10 (1%) trials having already registered, 55 commitments to register and a variety of other responses. The overall registration rate was therefore 80%. CONCLUSIONS:Despite researchers and sponsors being reminded that registration of clinical trials is a condition of the research ethics committee (REC) favourable opinion, one-fifth of clinical trials either had not been registered, or their registration could not easily be found, 14 to 20 months after receiving the favourable opinion letter. The methodology trialled here proved effective, and although there are positive indications of a culture change towards greater registration, our results show that more still needs to be done to increase trial registration.
| S-EPMC6398673 | biostudies-other
Project description:To advance the development of point-of-care technology (POCT), the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering established the POCT Research Network (POCTRN), comprised of Centers that emphasize multidisciplinary partnerships and close facilitation to move technologies from an early stage of development into clinical testing and patient use. This paper describes the POCTRN and the three currently funded Centers as examples of academic-based organizations that support collaborations across disciplines, institutions, and geographic regions to successfully drive innovative solutions from concept to patient care.
| S-EPMC5052024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Commercial or industry funding is associated with outcomes that favour the study funder in published studies, across various areas of research. However, it is currently unclear whether there are differences between trials with and without industry involvement at the stage of trial registration. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether industry involvement (industry sponsorship, funding, or collaboration) is associated with trial characteristics at the time of trial registration. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all interventional studies registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry in 2017 and classified them by industry involvement. We analysed whether there were differences in study characteristics (including type of control, sample size, study phase, randomisation, registration timing, and purpose of study) by industry involvement. RESULTS:Industry involvement was reported by 21% of the 1,433 included trials. Only 40% of trials with industry involvement used an active control compared to 58% of non-industry trials (OR = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.63, p < .001), and industry trials reported smaller sample sizes (Median(IQR)industry = 45(24-100), Median(IQR)non-industry = 70(35-160), Mean Difference = -153, 95% CI = -233 to -75, p < .001). Industry trials were more likely to be earlier phase trials (?2(df) = 71.46(4), p < .001). There was no difference in use of randomisation between industry (70%) and non-industry trials (73%) (OR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.67-1.20, p = .38). Eighty-three percent of industry trials compared to 70% of non-industry trials were prospectively registered (OR = 2.02, 95%CI = 1.47-2.82, p < .001). Industry trials were more likely to assess treatment (85%), rather than prevention, education or diagnosis compared to non-industry trials (64%) (OR = 3.02, 95%CI = 2.17-4.32, p < .001). CONCLUSION:The current study gives insight into differences in trial characteristics by industry involvement at registration stage. There was a reduced use of active controls in trials with industry involvement which has previously been proposed as a mechanism behind more favourable results. Non-industry funders and sponsors are crucial to ensure research addresses not only treatments, but also prevention, diagnosis and education questions.
| S-EPMC6760823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than non-significant or null findings, leaving scientists and healthcare personnel to make decisions based on distorted scientific evidence. Continuously expanding ´file drawers' of unpublished data from well-designed experiments waste resources creates problems for researchers, the scientific community and the public. There is limited awareness of the negative impact that publication bias and selective reporting have on the scientific literature. Alternative publication formats have recently been introduced that make it easier to publish research that is difficult to publish in traditional peer reviewed journals. These include micropublications, data repositories, data journals, preprints, publishing platforms, and journals focusing on null or neutral results. While these alternative formats have the potential to reduce publication bias, many scientists are unaware that these formats exist and don't know how to use them. Our open source file drawer data liberation effort (fiddle) tool (RRID:SCR_017327 available at: http://s-quest.bihealth.org/fiddle/) is a match-making Shiny app designed to help biomedical researchers to identify the most appropriate publication format for their data. Users can search for a publication format that meets their needs, compare and contrast different publication formats, and find links to publishing platforms. This tool will assist scientists in getting otherwise inaccessible, hidden data out of the file drawer into the scientific community and literature. We briefly highlight essential details that should be included to ensure reporting quality, which will allow others to use and benefit from research published in these new formats.
| S-EPMC7593522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinicalTrials.gov is a publicly accessible, Internet-based registry of clinical trials managed by the US National Library of Medicine that has the potential to address selective trial publication. Our objectives were to examine completeness of registration within ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the extent and correlates of selective publication.Methods and findingsWe examined reporting of registration information among a cross-section of trials that had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov after December 31, 1999 and updated as having been completed by June 8, 2007, excluding phase I trials. We then determined publication status among a random 10% subsample by searching MEDLINE using a systematic protocol, after excluding trials completed after December 31, 2005 to allow at least 2 y for publication following completion. Among the full sample of completed trials (n = 7,515), nearly 100% reported all data elements mandated by ClinicalTrials.gov, such as intervention and sponsorship. Optional data element reporting varied, with 53% reporting trial end date, 66% reporting primary outcome, and 87% reporting trial start date. Among the 10% subsample, less than half (311 of 677, 46%) of trials were published, among which 96 (31%) provided a citation within ClinicalTrials.gov of a publication describing trial results. Trials primarily sponsored by industry (40%, 144 of 357) were less likely to be published when compared with nonindustry/nongovernment sponsored trials (56%, 110 of 198; p<0.001), but there was no significant difference when compared with government sponsored trials (47%, 57 of 122; p = 0.22). Among trials that reported an end date, 75 of 123 (61%) completed prior to 2004, 50 of 96 (52%) completed during 2004, and 62 of 149 (42%) completed during 2005 were published (p = 0.006).ConclusionsReporting of optional data elements varied and publication rates among completed trials registered within ClinicalTrials.gov were low. Without greater attention to reporting of all data elements, the potential for ClinicalTrials.gov to address selective publication of clinical trials will be limited. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
| S-EPMC2728480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsBibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017.ResultsAnalysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean = 18.03, SD = 3.63, maximum = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean = 1.83) for the analysed publications.ConclusionsThe NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.
| S-EPMC8626935 | biostudies-literature