↓ Skip to main content

Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
18 blogs
twitter
528 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
31 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
253 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
Title
Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis
Published in
British Medical Journal, October 2013
DOI 10.1136/bmj.f6104
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. W. Jones, L. Handler, K. E. Crowell, L. G. Keil, M. A. Weaver, T. F. Platts-Mills

Abstract

To estimate the frequency with which results of large randomized clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov are not available to the public. Cross sectional analysis Trials with at least 500 participants that were prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and completed prior to January 2009. PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase were searched to identify published manuscripts containing trial results. The final literature search occurred in November 2012. Registry entries for unpublished trials were reviewed to determine whether results for these studies were available in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database. The frequency of non-publication of trial results and, among unpublished studies, the frequency with which results are unavailable in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Of 585 registered trials, 171 (29%) remained unpublished. These 171 unpublished trials had an estimated total enrollment of 299,763 study participants. The median time between study completion and the final literature search was 60 months for unpublished trials. Non-publication was more common among trials that received industry funding (150/468, 32%) than those that did not (21/117, 18%), P=0.003. Of the 171 unpublished trials, 133 (78%) had no results available in ClinicalTrials.gov. Among this group of large clinical trials, non-publication of results was common and the availability of results in the ClinicalTrials.gov database was limited. A substantial number of study participants were exposed to the risks of trial participation without the societal benefits that accompany the dissemination of trial results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 528 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 4%
United States 6 3%
Canada 3 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 196 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 19%
Student > Master 33 15%
Other 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Other 60 27%
Unknown 13 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 8%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Psychology 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 30 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 625. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2022.
All research outputs
#26,443
of 21,807,934 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#632
of 58,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179
of 209,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#7
of 857 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,807,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 857 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.