CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 244Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Time to publication for results of clinical trials

Open access
Hopewell, Sally, Clarke, Mike J, Stewart, Lesley, Tierney, Jayne·2007·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub2PMC PMC7437393
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that a time-lag bias exists whereby research studies with striking results are more likely to be stopped earlier than originally planned, published quicker, or both. If time-lag bias exists, new interventions might be mistakenly assumed to be effective. OBJECTIVES: To study the extent to which time to publication of a clinical trial is influenced by the significance of its result. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2005), EMBASE (1980 to May 2005), Science Citation Index (June 2005) and by handsearching journals and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they contained analyses of any aspect of the time to publication of clinical trials and tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was performed independently by two authors. Data were extracted on the median time from the date the trial started to the date of publication. Data were also extracted on source of trials under investigation; source of funding; area of health care; means by which the publication status of these trials were sought; and methodological quality of the empirical study. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies with a total of 196 trials met the inclusion criteria. In both studies just over half of all trials had been published in full. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant in favour of the experimental arm) were published in approximately 4 to 5 years. Trials with null or negative results (i.e. not statistically significant or statistically significant in favour of the control arm) were published after about 6 to 8 years. One study suggested that this difference could, in part, be attributed to the length of time taken to publish the results of a trial once follow up has been completed. This study showed that trials with null or negative findings took, on average, just over a year longer to be published than those with positive results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that trials with positive results are published sooner than other trials. This has important implications for the timing of the initiation and updating of a review, especially if there is an association between the inclusion of a trial in a review and its publication status. It is of particular concern when one considers reviews containing only a small number of studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub2

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Liebeskind, 1999, Empirical evidence of publication bias affecting acute stroke clincal trials, Stroke, 30, 268
  2. Hopewell, June 2001, The enhanced Cochrane Methodology Register, The Cochrane Collaboration Methods Groups Newsletter, 5, 8

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 244

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M. J., Stewart, L., & Tierney, J.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
  • Medical Research Council (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-04-18
Volume
2010
Issue
1
Pages
MR000011-MR000011
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub2
PMC
PMC7437393
OpenAlex
W2108513996
Cited by
243
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 16
FWCI
17.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2024-11-27)
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
time to publication, clinical trials, positive results, publication status
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Publishing, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Publication Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review