• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study.法国生物医学研究方案的命运与发表偏倚:回顾性队列研究
BMJ. 2005 Jul 2;331(7507):19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38488.385995.8F. Epub 2005 Jun 20.
2
Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study.资金对生物医学研究的影响:一项回顾性队列研究。
BMC Public Health. 2006 Jun 22;6:165. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-165.
3
Oral presentation bias: a retrospective cohort study.口头报告偏倚:一项回顾性队列研究。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Mar;61(3):190-3. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.048603.
4
The activity of French research ethics committees and characteristics of biomedical research protocols involving humans: a retrospective cohort study.法国研究伦理委员会的活动及涉及人类的生物医学研究方案的特点:一项回顾性队列研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2005 Oct 17;6:E9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-6-9.
5
Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others.德国某医学院的临床研究项目:从伦理批准到发表及被他人引用的跟踪研究。
J Med Ethics. 2008 Sep;34(9):e20. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024521.
6
Two prognostic indicators of the publication rate of clinical studies were available during ethical review.伦理审查时可获得两项临床研究发表率的预后指标。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Dec;63(12):1342-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.018. Epub 2010 Jun 16.
7
[Selective reporting of positive outcomes in randomised trials--secondary publication.. A comparison of protocols with published reports].[随机试验中阳性结果的选择性报告——二次发表。方案与已发表报告的比较]
Ugeskr Laeger. 2005 Aug 22;167(34):3189-91.
8
NIH clinical trials and publication bias.美国国立卫生研究院的临床试验与发表偏倚。
Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993 Apr 28;Doc No 50:[4967 words; 53 paragraphs].
9
Publication bias in papers presented to the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting.提交给澳大利亚骨科协会年度科学会议的论文中的发表偏倚。
ANZ J Surg. 2006 Jun;76(6):427-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03747.x.
10
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.发表偏倚:临床研究项目队列研究中延迟发表的证据。
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):640-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640.

引用本文的文献

1
Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial With a Mobile Health Intervention for Children With Obesity.一项针对肥胖儿童的移动健康干预随机对照试验的过程评估
Sage Open Pediatr. 2025 Jun 25;12:30502225251348292. doi: 10.1177/30502225251348292. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
2
Time to publication for results of clinical trials.临床试验结果的发表时间。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Nov 27;11(11):MR000011. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3.
3
Completion Rate and Positive Results Reporting Among Immunotherapy Trials in Breast Cancer, 2004-2023.2004 年至 2023 年乳腺癌免疫治疗试验的完成率和阳性结果报告情况。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jul 1;7(7):e2423390. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.23390.
4
Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?肺癌手术中的随机对照试验:我们做得如何?
JTCVS Open. 2024 Jan 20;18:234-252. doi: 10.1016/j.xjon.2024.01.008. eCollection 2024 Apr.
5
Is our public research money well spent? Publication of research outputs from Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded studies: a cross-sectional study.我们的公共研究资金是否得到了有效利用?对新西兰健康研究理事会资助研究的产出成果的发表情况进行调查:一项横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 May 31;13(5):e072446. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072446.
6
Publication of studies registered in Clinical Trials Registry of India: An audit of mood disorder research protocols from 2009-2019.在印度临床试验注册中心注册的研究成果发布:对2009年至2019年情绪障碍研究方案的审计
Indian J Psychiatry. 2023 Jan;65(1):68-74. doi: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_366_22. Epub 2023 Jan 13.
7
Tracing the path of 37,050 studies into practice across 18 specialties of the 2.4 million published between 2011 and 2020.追溯 2011 年至 2020 年间发表的 240 万篇文献中 18 个专业的 37050 项研究在实践中的应用路径。
Elife. 2023 Feb 28;12:e82498. doi: 10.7554/eLife.82498.
8
Publication bias in trials registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Is it a problem? A cross-sectional study.澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册中心注册试验中的发表偏倚:这是一个问题吗?一项横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2023 Jan 5;18(1):e0279926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279926. eCollection 2023.
9
Reporting quality of clinical trial protocols: a repeated cross-sectional study about the Adherence to SPIrit Recommendations in Switzerland, CAnada and GErmany (ASPIRE-SCAGE).临床试验方案报告质量:瑞士、加拿大和德国(ASPIRE-SCAGE)遵守 SPIrit 建议的研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 May 24;12(5):e053417. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053417.
10
What's Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation.临床前科学中的是非:原则性研究问题
Front Behav Neurosci. 2022 Mar 9;16:805661. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.805661. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use.欧洲议会和理事会2001年4月4日关于协调各成员国有关在人用药品临床试验实施中适用良好临床实践的法律、法规及行政规定的第2001/20/EC号指令。
Med Etika Bioet. 2002 Spring-Summer;9(1-2):12-9.
2
Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.临床试验注册:国际医学期刊编辑委员会的声明
Med J Aust. 2004 Sep 20;181(6):293-4.
3
Compulsory registration of clinical trials.临床试验的强制注册
BMJ. 2004 Sep 18;329(7467):637-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7467.637.
4
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.随机试验中结果选择性报告的实证证据:方案与已发表文章的比较。
JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457.
5
Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results.研究伦理委员会在结果随访与发表中的作用。
Lancet. 2003 Mar 22;361(9362):1015-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12799-7.
6
Publication bias is a scientific problem with adverse ethical outcomes: the case for a section for null results.发表偏倚是一个具有不良伦理后果的科学问题:设立阴性结果板块的理由。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Aug;9(8):771-2.
7
Time to register randomised trials. The case is now unanswerable.是时候登记随机试验了。现在这个问题已经无可辩驳。
BMJ. 1999 Oct 2;319(7214):865-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7214.865.
8
Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials.结果的统计学显著性对随机疗效试验完成时间和发表时间的影响。
JAMA. 1998 Jan 28;279(4):281-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.4.281.
9
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.发表偏倚:临床研究项目队列研究中延迟发表的证据。
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):640-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640.
10
NIH clinical trials and publication bias.美国国立卫生研究院的临床试验与发表偏倚。
Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993 Apr 28;Doc No 50:[4967 words; 53 paragraphs].

法国生物医学研究方案的命运与发表偏倚:回顾性队列研究

Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study.

作者信息

Decullier Evelyne, Lhéritier Véronique, Chapuis François

机构信息

Clinical Research Unit, DIM des Hospices Civils de Lyon, 162 avenue Lacassagne, 69424 Lyon cedex 03, France.

出版信息

BMJ. 2005 Jul 2;331(7507):19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38488.385995.8F. Epub 2005 Jun 20.

DOI:10.1136/bmj.38488.385995.8F
PMID:15967761
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC558532/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To describe the fate of protocols approved by the French research ethics committees, a national system created by the French 1988 Huriet-Sérusclat Act; to assess publication bias at a national level.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Representative sample of 25/48 French research ethics committees in 1994. PROTOCOLS: 649 research protocols approved by committees, with follow-up information.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Protocols' initial characteristics (design, study size, investigator) abstracted from committees' archives; follow-up information (rates of initiation, completion, and publication) obtained from mailed questionnaire to principal investigators.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were available for 649/976 (69%) protocols. Of these, 581 (90%) studies were initiated, 501/581 (86%) were completed, and 190/501 (38%) were published. Studies with confirmatory results were more likely to be published as scientific papers than were studies with inconclusive results (adjusted odds ratio 4.59, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 9.54). Moreover, studies with confirmatory results were published more quickly than studies with inconclusive results (hazard ratio 2.48, 1.36 to 4.55).

CONCLUSION

At a national level, too many research studies are not completed, and among those completed too many are not published. We suggest capitalising on research ethics committees to register and follow all authorised research on human participants on a systematic and prospective basis.

摘要

目的

描述法国研究伦理委员会批准的研究方案的后续情况,该委员会是根据法国1988年《于里埃 - 塞吕克拉法案》设立的全国性系统;评估全国范围内的发表偏倚。

设计

回顾性队列研究。

研究地点

1994年法国48个研究伦理委员会中的25个的代表性样本。

研究方案

委员会批准的649项研究方案,并具备随访信息。

主要观察指标

从委员会档案中提取的研究方案初始特征(设计、研究规模、研究者);通过向主要研究者邮寄问卷获得的随访信息(启动率、完成率和发表率)。

结果

976项研究方案中有649项(69%)获得了完整的问卷回复。其中,581项(90%)研究启动,501/581项(86%)完成,190/501项(38%)发表。与结果无定论的研究相比,结果得到证实的研究更有可能作为科学论文发表(调整后的优势比为4.59,95%置信区间为2.21至9.54)。此外,结果得到证实的研究比结果无定论的研究发表得更快(风险比为2.48,1.36至4.55)。

结论

在全国范围内,有太多的研究未完成,而那些完成的研究中又有太多未发表。我们建议利用研究伦理委员会,对所有经授权的人体研究参与者进行系统和前瞻性的登记及随访。