Are investigators’ access to trial data and rights to publish restricted and are potential trial participants informed about this? A comparison of trial protocols and informed consent materials
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Objectives: To determine to which degree industry partners in randomised clinical trials own the data and can constrain publication rights of academic investigators. Methods: Cohort study of trial protocols, publication agreements and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests, for a sample of 42 trials with industry involvement approved by ethics committees in Denmark. The main outcome measures used were: proportion of trials where data was owned by the industry partner, where the investigators right to publish were constrained and if this was mentioned in informed consent documents, and where the industry partner could review data while the trial was ongoing and stop the trial early. Results: The industry partner owned all data in 20 trials (48%) and in 16 trials (38%) it was unclear. Publication constraints were described for 30 trials (71%) and this was not communicated to trial participants in informed consent documents in any of the trials. In eight trials (19%) the industry partner could review data during the trial, for 20 trials (48%) it was unclear. The industry partner could stop the trial early without any specific reason in 23 trials (55%). Conclusions: Publication constraints are common, and data is often owned by industry partners. This is rarely communicated to trial participants. Such constraints might contribute to problems with selective outcome reporting. Patients should be fully informed about these aspects of trial conduct.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Restrictions on publication have been imposed by various groups, including industry sponsors.
“Restrictions on publication have been imposed by various groups, including industry sponsors.38 49 50”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 3
- Authors
- Paludan-Müller, A. S., Ogden, M. C., Marquardsen, M., Jørgensen, K. J., & Gøtzsche, P. C.
- Affiliations
- Rigshospitalet (DK)
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Venue
- BMC Medical Ethics
- Published
- 2021-08-28
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 115-115
- ISSN
- 1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8403412
- OpenAlex
- W3198162193
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Laura and John Arnold Foundation
- Helsefonden
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- publication rights, data ownership, industry funding, randomized controlled trials, informed consent, publishing contracts, selective outcome reporting, trial termination, patient information, research ethics
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Informed Consent, Research Personnel, Cohort Studies, Consent Forms
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