The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 494 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| 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 |
Christopher W Jones, Lara Handler, Karen E Crowell, Lukas G Keil, Mark A Weaver, Timothy 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 Registry entries for unpublished trials were reviewed to determine whether results for these studies were available in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database. The frequency of non-publication of trial results and, among unpublished studies, the frequency with which results are unavailable in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Of 585 registered trials, 171 (29%) remained unpublished. These 171 unpublished trials had an estimated total enrollment of 299,763 study participants. The median time between study completion and the final literature search was 60 months for unpublished trials.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 Of the 171 unpublished trials, 133 (78%) had no results available in ClinicalTrials.gov.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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 96 | 19% |
| United States | 68 | 14% |
| Spain | 23 | 5% |
| Canada | 22 | 4% |
| Australia | 19 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 10 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 9 | 2% |
| France | 9 | 2% |
| Germany | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 82 | 17% |
| Unknown | 147 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 322 | 65% |
| Scientists | 90 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 57 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 24 | 5% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 3% |
| United States | 6 | 2% |
| 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 | 216 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 44 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 15% |
| Other | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 64 | 27% |
| Unknown | 22 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 121 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 39 | 16% |
| Unknown | 37 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 598. 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 29 July 2024.
All research outputs
#41,461
of 26,746,546 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#810
of 66,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219
of 227,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#10
of 857 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,746,546 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 66,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.0. 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 227,996 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 98% of its contemporaries.