Cited by 215Pharmaceutical industry and healthcarePharmaceutical Economics and PolicyAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Publication of Clinical Trials Supporting Successful New Drug Applications: A Literature Analysis

Open access
Lee, Kirby, Bacchetti, Peter, Sim, Ida·2008·PLoS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs based on sponsor-submitted clinical trials. The publication status of these trials in the medical literature and factors associated with publication have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the proportion of trials submitted to the FDA in support of newly approved drugs that are published in biomedical journals that a typical clinician, consumer, or policy maker living in the US would reasonably search. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study of trials supporting new drugs approved between 1998 and 2000, as described in FDA medical and statistical review documents and the FDA approved drug label. We determined publication status and time from approval to full publication in the medical literature at 2 and 5 y by searching PubMed and other databases through 01 August 2006. We then evaluated trial characteristics associated with publication. We identified 909 trials supporting 90 approved drugs in the FDA reviews, of which 43% (394/909) were published. Among the subset of trials described in the FDA-approved drug label and classified as "pivotal trials" for our analysis, 76% (257/340) were published. In multivariable logistic regression for all trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78-5.17); larger sample sizes (OR 1.33 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.17-1.52); and pivotal status (OR 5.31, 95% CI 3.30-8.55). In multivariable logistic regression for only the pivotal trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.24-7.06) and larger sample sizes (OR 1.47 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.15-1.88). Statistically significant results and larger sample sizes were also predictive of publication at 2 y postapproval and in multivariable Cox proportional models for all trials and the subset of pivotal trials. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished >/= 5 y after approval. Pivotal trials and trials with statistically significant results and larger sample sizes are more likely to be published. Selective reporting of trial results exists for commonly marketed drugs. Our data provide a baseline for evaluating publication bias as the new FDA Amendments Act comes into force mandating basic results reporting of clinical trials.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050191

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.

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 215

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Mathews A Martinez B (01 11 2004) E-mails suggest Merck knew Vioxx's dangers at early stage Wall Street Journal A1
  2. Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System 2007 The future of drug safety: Promoting and protecting the health of the public Baciu A Stratton K Burke SP Washington (D. C.) National Academies Press

Authors
Lee, K., Bacchetti, P., & Sim, I.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of California System (US)
Corresponding author
Sim, Ida
Venue
PLoS Medicine
Published
2008-09-23
Volume
5
Issue
9
Pages
e191
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W1990624992
Cited by
215
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 24
FWCI
16.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (RR024131)
  • University of California, San Francisco (UL1RR024131)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM 06780, R01LM006780)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024131, RR 024131, KL2RR024130)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
publication bias, unpublished clinical trials, new drug approvals, FDA drug approval, publication status, statistical significance, sample size, drug labeling, clinical trial reporting, evidence-based medicine, time to publication, United States Food and Drug Administration
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Cohort Studies, Bias, Drug Approval, Databases as Topic, PubMed

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