Results dissemination of registered clinical trials across Polish academic institutions: a cross-sectional analysis

Strzebońska, Karolina; Wasylewski, Mateusz; Zaborowska, Łucja; Riedel, Nico; Wieschowski, Susanne; Strech, Daniel; Waligóra, Marcin

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034666

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, future analyses of COVID-19 publication productivity should ideally include publications in the Chinese language to obtain a more comprehensive view on this topic. Likewise, many future trials are not yet registered in the WHO database and it has been reported that up to 50% of registered studies are published with a latency of several years and some even remain unpublished [20,21]. Ultimately, our results cover just a four month period and 30 countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

National Publication Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Preliminary Exploratory Analysis of the 30 Countries Most Affected

Müller

Mueller

Navarini

et al. 2020

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The COVID 19 pandemic increased publication productivity enormously with numerous new COVID-19-related articles appearing daily, despite the fact that many health care workers in the partially overburdened national health care systems were faced with major challenges. Methods: In a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study we compared and correlated 17 epidemiologic, health care system-related and health-economic factors from medical databases and intergovernmental organisations potentially influencing the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publication productivity between 1 January and 30 April 2020 amongst the 30 countries most severely affected by the pandemic. These factors were additionally correlated with the national pre-COVID-19 publication rate for the same pre-year period to identify potential changes in the general publication behaviour. Findings: COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publication rates correlated strongest with access to and quality of health care (ρ = 0.80 and 0.87, p < 0.0001), COVID-19 cases per capita (ρ = 0.78 and 0.72, p < 0.0001), GDP per capita (ρ = 0.69 and 0.76, p < 0.0001), health spending per capita (ρ = 0.61 and 0.73, p < 0.0001) and the pre-COVID-19 Hirsch-Index (ρ = 0.61 and 0.62, p = 0.002 and <0.0001). Ratios of publication rates for “Cancer”, “Diabetes” and “Stroke” in 2020 versus the pre-year period were 0.88 ± 0.06, 1.02 ± 0.18 and 0.9 ± 0.20, resulting in a pooled ratio of 0.93 ± 0.06 for non-COVID-19 publications. Interpretation: There are marked geographic and national differences in publication productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both COVID-19- and non-COVID-19 publication productivity correlates with epidemiologic, health care system-related and healtheconomic factors, and pre-COVID publication expertise. Countries with a stable scientific infrastructure appear to maintain non-COVID-19 publication productivity nearly at the pre-year level and at the same time use their resilience to produce COVID-19 publications at high rates.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

National Publication Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Preliminary Exploratory Analysis of the 30 Countries Most Affected

Müller

Mueller

Navarini

et al. 2020

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our study protocol and a detailed methods supplement ( https:// osf.io/ 98j7u/ ) allows the replication of our study also for other countries. A first replication based on the study protocol for our former study is already available for Poland [17] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results dissemination from completed clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers remained delayed and incomplete. The 2014 –2017 cohort

Riedel

Wieschowski

Brückner

et al. 2022

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The datasets and methods used in this study can be scaled: This has been demonstrated in another European country (Poland) [ 48 ] and is currently underway in California, USA [ 49 ]. While the generation of the underlying dataset of clinical trials and associated results publications involves manual checks (approximately 10 person-hours per 100 trials), the assessment of transparency practices is largely automated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background University Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community. Methods and findings We developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% (n = 58/178) to 75% (n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% (n = 0/44) to 79% (n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% (n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% (n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% (n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% (n = 191/2,253) and 3% (n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% (n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% (n = 16/38) to 74% (n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date. Conclusions In this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.

show abstract

Results dissemination of registered clinical trials across Polish academic institutions: a cross-sectional analysis

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

National Publication Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Preliminary Exploratory Analysis of the 30 Countries Most Affected

National Publication Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Preliminary Exploratory Analysis of the 30 Countries Most Affected

Results dissemination from completed clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers remained delayed and incomplete. The 2014 –2017 cohort

Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About