No abstract

ObjectiveTimely and comprehensive reporting of clinical trial results build the backbone of evidence-based medicine and responsible research. The proportion of timely disseminated trial results can inform alternative national and international benchmarking of university medical centers (UMCs).Study Design and SettingFor all German UMCs we tracked all registered trials completed between 2009 and 2013. The results and an interactive website benchmark German UMCs regarding their performance in results dissemination.ResultsWe identified and tracked 2,132 clinical trials. For 1,509 trials, one of the German UMCs took the academic lead. Of these 1,509 “lead trials”, 39% published their results (mostly via journal publications) in a timely manner (<24 months after completion). More than six years after study completion, 26% of all eligible lead trials still had not disseminated results.ConclusionDespite substantial attention from many stakeholders to the topic, there is still a strong delay or even absence of results dissemination for many trials. German UMCs have several opportunities to improve this situation. Further research should evaluate whether and how a transparent benchmarking of UMC performance in results dissemination helps to increase value and reduce waste in medical research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess treatment effects of medical interventions. We aimed to hypothetically pool bodies of evidence (BoE) from RCTs with matched BoE from cohort studies included in the same systematic review. Methods BoE derived from systematic reviews of RCTs and cohort studies published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor were considered. We re-analyzed effect estimates of the included systematic reviews by pooling BoE from RCTs with BoE from cohort studies using random and common effects models. We evaluated statistical heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, weight of BoE from RCTs to the pooled estimate, and whether integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion from BoE of RCTs. Results Overall, 118 BoE-pairs based on 653 RCTs and 804 cohort studies were pooled. By pooling BoE from RCTs and cohort studies with a random effects model, for 61 (51.7%) out of 118 BoE-pairs, the 95% confidence interval (CI) excludes no effect. By pooling BoE from RCTs and cohort studies, the median I2 was 48%, and the median contributed percentage weight of RCTs to the pooled estimates was 40%. The direction of effect between BoE from RCTs and pooled effect estimates was mainly concordant (79.7%). The integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion (by examining the 95% CI) from BoE of RCTs in 32 (27%) of the 118 BoE-pairs, but the direction of effect was mainly concordant (88%). Conclusions Our findings provide insights for the potential impact of pooling both BoE in systematic reviews. In medical research, it is often important to rely on both evidence of RCTs and cohort studies to get a whole picture of an investigated intervention-disease association. A decision for or against pooling different study designs should also always take into account, for example, PI/ECO similarity, risk of bias, coherence of effect estimates, and also the trustworthiness of the evidence. Overall, there is a need for more research on the influence of those issues on potential pooling.

No abstract

No abstract