Suppr超能文献

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。

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others.

作者信息

Blümle A, Antes G, Schumacher M, Just H, von Elm E

机构信息

Department of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2008 Sep;34(9):e20. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024521.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied.

METHODS

The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications.

RESULTS

299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

摘要

背景

科学界只能获取已发表研究结果的数据以供进一步使用,例如为未来研究提供信息以及综合现有证据。如果研究结果被选择性报告,可能会出现报告偏倚以及治疗效果或危害汇总估计值的扭曲。对在德国开展的临床研究结果的发表和引用情况进行了研究。

方法

分析了2000年提交给德国弗莱堡大学研究伦理委员会的临床研究项目方案。在多个数据库中检索已发表的全文文章并联系研究者。从方案和相应出版物中提取有关研究和发表特征的数据。

结果

纳入了299项研究方案。最常见的研究设计是随机对照试验(141项;47%),其次是无对照研究(61项;20%)、实验室研究(30项;10%)和非随机研究(29项;10%)。182项(61%)为多中心研究,其中97项(53%)为国际合作研究。299项中有152项(51%)有商业(共同)资助,46项(15%)有非商业资助。225项已完成的方案中有109项至少对应一篇全文发表(共210篇文章);发表率为48%。在ISI科学网索引的文章中,210篇已识别的出版物中有168篇(80%)被引用。每篇出版物的引用中位数为11次(范围0 - 1151次)。

结论

德国开展的临床研究项目结果大多未得到充分报告。需要找出成功发表的障碍并采取适当措施。在发表前对项目进行密切监测并为研究者提供充分支持,可能有助于纠正普遍存在的研究报告不足的情况。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验