Suppr超能文献

学术药物试验发表的障碍。丹麦药品管理局批准的试验随访。

Barriers towards the publication of academic drug trials. Follow-up of trials approved by the Danish Medicines Agency.

作者信息

Berendt Louise, Petersen Lene Grejs, Bach Karin Friis, Poulsen Henrik Enghusen, Dalhoff Kim

机构信息

The GCP Unit at Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Medicines Development & Clinical Trials, Danish Medicines Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 May 9;12(5):e0172581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172581. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To characterize and quantify barriers towards the publication of academic drug trials.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified academic drug trials approved during a 3-year period (2004-2007) by the Danish Medicines Agency. We conducted a survey among the trial sponsors to describe the rates of initiation, completion, and publication, and the reasons for the failure to reach each of these milestones. Information on size and methodological characteristics of the trials was extracted from the EudraCT database, a prospective register of all approved clinical drug trials submitted to European medicines agencies since 2004.

RESULTS

A total of 181 academic drug trials were eligible for inclusion, 139 of which participated in our survey (response rate: 77%). Follow-up time ranged from 5.1 to 7.9 years. Most trials were randomized controlled trials (73%, 95% CI 65-81%). Initiation and completion rates were 92% (95% CI: 88-97%) and 93% (95% CI: 89-97%) respectively. The publication rate of completed trials was 73% (95% CI: 62-79%). RCTs were published faster than non-RCTs (quartile time to publication 2.9 vs. 3.1 years, p = 0.0412).

CONCLUSIONS

Many academic drug trials are left unpublished. Main barriers towards publication were related to the process from completion to publication. Hence, there is much to gain by facilitating the process from analysis to publication. Research institutions and funders should actively influence this process, e.g. by requiring the publication of trial results within a given time after completion.

摘要

目的

描述并量化学术性药物试验发表过程中的障碍因素。

研究设计

我们确定了丹麦药品管理局在3年期间(2004 - 2007年)批准的学术性药物试验。我们对试验申办者进行了一项调查,以描述试验启动、完成和发表的比例,以及未能达到这些里程碑的原因。试验的规模和方法学特征信息从EudraCT数据库中提取,该数据库是自2004年以来提交给欧洲药品管理机构的所有批准的临床药物试验的前瞻性登记库。

结果

共有181项学术性药物试验符合纳入标准,其中139项参与了我们的调查(回复率:77%)。随访时间为5.1至7.9年。大多数试验为随机对照试验(73%,95%可信区间65 - 81%)。启动率和完成率分别为92%(95%可信区间:88 - 97%)和93%(95%可信区间:89 - 97%)。完成试验的发表率为73%(95%可信区间:62 - 79%)。随机对照试验比非随机对照试验发表得更快(发表的四分位数时间为2.9年对3.1年,p = 0.0412)。

结论

许多学术性药物试验未发表。发表的主要障碍与从完成到发表的过程有关。因此,促进从分析到发表的过程有很大益处。研究机构和资助者应积极影响这一过程,例如要求在完成后的规定时间内发表试验结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0779/5423601/5dbdc75d5084/pone.0172581.g001.jpg

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