CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareAcademic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Publication and reporting of clinical trial results: cross sectional analysis across academic medical centers

Open access
Chen, Ruijun, Desai, Nihar R, Ross, Joseph S, Zhang, Weiwei, Chau, Katherine H, Wayda, Brian, Murugiah, Karthik, Lu, Daniel Y, Mittal, Amit, Krumholz, Harlan M·2016·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.i637PMC PMC4768882
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of publication and reporting of results within two years for all completed clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov across leading academic medical centers in the United States. DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis. SETTING: Academic medical centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Academic medical centers with 40 or more completed interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: Using the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database and manual review, we identified all interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with a primary completion date between October 2007 and September 2010 and with a lead investigator affiliated with an academic medical center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of trials that disseminated results, defined as publication or reporting of results on ClinicalTrials.gov, overall and within 24 months of study completion. RESULTS: We identified 4347 interventional clinical trials across 51 academic medical centers. Among the trials, 1005 (23%) enrolled more than 100 patients, 1216 (28%) were double blind, and 2169 (50%) were phase II through IV. Overall, academic medical centers disseminated results for 2892 (66%) trials, with 1560 (35.9%) achieving this within 24 months of study completion. The proportion of clinical trials with results disseminated within 24 months of study completion ranged from 16.2% (6/37) to 55.3% (57/103) across academic medical centers. The proportion of clinical trials published within 24 months of study completion ranged from 10.8% (4/37) to 40.3% (31/77) across academic medical centers, whereas results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov ranged from 1.6% (2/122) to 40.7% (72/177). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the ethical mandate and expressed values and mission of academic institutions, there is poor performance and noticeable variation in the dissemination of clinical trial results across leading academic medical centers.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.i637

Cites

22 of 22 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]Scopus. Elsevier, 2014. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–226 of 226

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chen, R., Desai, N. R., Ross, J. S., Zhang, W., Chau, K. H., Wayda, B., Murugiah, K., Lu, D. Y., Mittal, A., & Krumholz, H. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Yale New Haven Hospital (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Krumholz, Harlan M
ORCID
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-02-17
Volume
352
Pages
i637
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmj.i637
PMC
PMC4768882
OpenAlex
W2277874940
Cited by
227
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 25
FWCI
43.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Federation for Aging Research (K08AG032886)
  • Yale University
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K12HS023000, K12 HS023000-01)
  • National Institute on Aging (K08AG032886)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL105270)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
publication rates, ClinicalTrials.gov, academic medical centers, clinical trial registration, result reporting, time to publication
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Publishing, United States, Databases, Factual

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