Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 86, 79110, Freiburg, Germany.
Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Elsässer Straße 2, 79110, Freiburg, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Aug 31;21(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01359-x.
Healthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.
We examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial's impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.
For 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.
An encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.
医疗决策理想情况下应基于临床试验结果,这些结果发表在研究注册处,作为期刊文章或总结在二次研究文章中。在这个研究项目中,我们通过测量系统评价和临床指南中发表和引用的试验比例,来研究学术和商业赞助的临床试验对医疗实践的影响。
我们研究了 691 项多中心、随机对照试验,这些试验于 2005 年或之后开始,于 2016 年底完成。为了确定赞助/资助和试验进行地点是否会影响试验的影响,我们创建了四个由研究者发起的试验(IITs)和工业赞助的试验(ISTs)的子队列:120 项 IITs 和 171 项具有德国贡献的 ISTs 与 200 项无德国贡献的 IITs 和 200 项 ISTs 进行比较。我们为研究阶段和试验进行地点平衡了这些组。德国 IITs 由德国研究基金会(DFG)、联邦教育和研究部(BMBF)或另一个非商业研究组织资助。所有其他试验都来自德国临床试验注册处或 ClinicalTrials.gov。我们使用多变量逻辑回归调查了研究特征与发表和影响的关联程度。
对于 691 项试验中的 80%,结果以医学期刊和/或研究注册处的研究结果文章发表,52%被系统评价引用,26%在临床指南中产生影响。药物试验和较大规模的试验比非药物试验和较小规模的试验更有可能发表和产生影响。IITs 的结果更常作为期刊文章发表,而 ISTs 的结果更常发表在研究注册处。国际 ISTs 比 IITs 更不容易通过纳入系统评价或指南获得影响。
令人鼓舞的是,很大比例的临床试验得到了发表,相当大的比例对临床实践产生了影响。然而,仍有改进的空间。对于发表研究结果,研究注册处已经成为期刊文章的替代或补充,特别是对于 ISTs。德国政府资助的 IITs 达到了与国际 IITs 和 ISTs 相当的影响。