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

Background. Studies with positive findings are more likely to be published compared to those with negative findings. Therefore the latter studies are often disregarded in systematic reviews. This causes an overestimation of a treatment effect size which leads to a misinterpretation of the evidence. Searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews is a useful source to retrieve unpublished clinical trials leading to the reduction of publication bias. Previous studies in the literature reported inconsistent searching of clinical trial registries in systematic reviews published in several medical fields. Searching clinical trial registries in physical therapy is still unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate the extent of clinical trial registry searching in physical therapy interventional systematic reviews. Methods. Systematic reviews published between January 2017 and January 2018 were retrieved from five reputable physical therapy journals. Interventional systematic reviews that were coherent with the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Results. The search yielded 40 systematic reviews. Among these 19 were interventional systematic reviews as well as being consistent with the inclusion criteria and thus were considered for the analysis. After reviewing their search methodology, only two reviews (10.5%) reported searching at least one clinical trial registry. Discussion. The results of this study suggest poor searching of clinical trial registries in physical therapy systematic reviews. Due to the limitations of this study, further research analyzing large samples of interventional physical therapy systematic reviews is required.

Download Full-text

24/7 In-House Intensivist Coverage And Fellowship Education: A Cross Sectional Survey Of Academic Medical Centers In The United States

10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2011.183.1_meetingabstracts.a1025 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Enrique Diaz-Guzman ◽

Colleen Y. Colbert ◽

David M. Mannino ◽

Daniel L. Davenport ◽

Alejandro C. Arroliga

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Academic Medical Centers ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medical Centers ◽

Academic Medical

Download Full-text

The older the better: are elderly study participants more non-representative? A cross-sectional analysis of clinical trial and observational study samples

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000833 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 2 (6) ◽

pp. e000833 ◽

Cited By ~ 43

Author(s):

Beatrice A Golomb ◽

Virginia T Chan ◽

Marcella A Evans ◽

Sabrina Koperski ◽

Halbert L White ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Observational Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cross Sectional Analysis ◽

Study Participants ◽

Sectional Analysis

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034666 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. e034666 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Karolina Strzebonska ◽

Mateusz T Wasylewski ◽

Lucja Zaborowska ◽

Nico Riedel ◽

Susanne Wieschowski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Outcome Measure ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Timely Manner ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Journal Publication ◽

Cross Sectional Analysis ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Study Completion ◽

Sectional Analysis

ObjectivesTo establish the rates of publication and reporting of results for interventional clinical trials across Polish academic medical centres (AMCs) completed between 2009 and 2013. We aim also to compare the publication and reporting success between adult and paediatric trials.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAMCs in Poland.ParticipantsAMCs with interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.Main outcome measureResults reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publishing via journal publication.ResultsWe identified 305 interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, completed between 2009 and 2013 and affiliated with at least one AMC. Overall, 243 of the 305 trials (79.7%) had been published as articles or posted their summary results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Results were posted within a year of study completion and/or published within 2 years of study completion for 131 trials (43.0%). Dissemination by both posting and publishing results in a timely manner was achieved by four trials (1.3%).ConclusionsOur cross-sectional analysis revealed that Polish AMCs fail to meet the expectation for timely disseminating the findings of all interventional clinical trials. Delayed dissemination and non-dissemination of trial results negatively affects decisions in healthcare.

Download Full-text

Pattern of Frequent But Nontargeted Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis for Hospitalized Patients With Cancer at Academic Medical Centers: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Multicenter Study

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.53.5336 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 32 (17) ◽

pp. 1792-1796 ◽

Cited By ~ 37

Author(s):

Jeffrey I. Zwicker ◽

Adam Rojan ◽

Federico Campigotto ◽

Nadia Rehman ◽

Renee Funches ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Scoring System ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Academic Medical Centers ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Patients With Cancer ◽

Medical Centers ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis ◽

To Receive

Purpose Hospitalized patients with cancer are considered to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite strong recommendations in numerous clinical practice guidelines, retrospective studies have shown that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is underutilized in hospitalized patients with cancer. Patients and Methods We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cancer at five academic hospitals to determine prescription rates of thromboprophylaxis and factors influencing its use during hospitalization. Results A total of 775 patients with cancer were enrolled across five academic medical centers. Two hundred forty-seven patients (31.9%) had relative contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Accounting for contraindications to anticoagulation, the overall rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was 74.2% (95% CI, 70.4% to 78.0%; 392 of 528 patients). Among the patients with cancer without contraindications for anticoagulation, individuals hospitalized with nonhematologic malignancies were significantly more likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those with hematologic malignancies (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.82; P = .007). Patients with cancer admitted for cancer therapy were significantly less likely to receive pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis than those admitted for other reasons (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.61; P < .001). Sixty-three percent of patients with cancer classified as low risk, as determined by the Padua Scoring System, received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. Among the 136 patients who did not receive anticoagulation, 58.8% were considered to be high risk by the Padua Scoring System. Conclusion We conclude that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is frequently administered to hospitalized patients with cancer but that nearly one third of patients are considered to have relative contraindications for prophylactic anticoagulation. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer is commonly prescribed without regard to the presence or absence of concomitant risk factors for VTE.

Download Full-text

Searching clinical trial registries in interventional physical therapy systematic reviews: A Pilot Cross-sectional Analysis

10.7287/peerj.preprints.26981v1 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Alaa Abou Khzam

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Physical Therapy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Trial Registry ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Clinical Trial Registry ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cross Sectional Analysis ◽

Clinical Trial Registries ◽

Sectional Analysis

Background. Studies with positive findings are more likely to be published compared to those with negative findings. Therefore the latter studies are often disregarded in systematic reviews. This causes an overestimation of a treatment effect size which leads to a misinterpretation of the evidence. Searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews is a useful source to retrieve unpublished clinical trials leading to the reduction of publication bias. Previous studies in the literature reported inconsistent searching of clinical trial registries in systematic reviews published in several medical fields. Searching clinical trial registries in physical therapy is still unknown. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate the extent of clinical trial registry searching in physical therapy interventional systematic reviews. Methods. Systematic reviews published between January 2017 and January 2018 were retrieved from five reputable physical therapy journals. Interventional systematic reviews that were coherent with the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Results. The search yielded 40 systematic reviews. Among these 19 were interventional systematic reviews as well as being consistent with the inclusion criteria and thus were considered for the analysis. After reviewing their search methodology, only two reviews (10.5%) reported searching at least one clinical trial registry. Discussion. The results of this study suggest poor searching of clinical trial registries in physical therapy systematic reviews. Due to the limitations of this study, further research analyzing large samples of interventional physical therapy systematic reviews is required.

Download Full-text