Abstract
Purpose
Evidence-based medicine requires evaluation of the medical literature to guide clinical reasoning and treatment recommendations. The presence of publication bias towards exclusion of non-statistically significant clinical trials may be leading to an incomplete evaluation of the literature and cause potentially incomplete guidance for patients. We aimed to compare publication rates and impact of publications of positive and negative outcome clinical trials.
Methods
We queried the US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials database identifying clinical trials with reported results on the topics of pancreatic, liver, and gastric cancer. A “positive” trial was defined as having a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms, while a “negative” did not. Data collected included termination cause, intervention, funding type, publication rates, and journal characteristics.
Results
In total, 535 clinical trials were examined, across all pathologies clinical trials with significant findings for the primary outcome were published at a higher rate (99%) compared to those with non-significant findings (77%) (p < 0.01). Significantly, more studies with significant findings reached at least 80% of their estimated enrollment goal versus non-significant studies, 72% and 53% respectively (p < 0.01). Three of four metrics for impact of publication showed no difference between significant and non-significant studies once they reached publication.
Conclusion
These findings suggest that clinical trials of three of the most common upper gastrointestinal malignancies have a publication bias towards studies with significant primary outcome findings. This study has implications to the way evidence-based medicine is practiced as the medical literature appears to be failing to capture important data for consideration of clinical decision making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DRDR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y.
Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H, Jr H. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8(4):343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3.
Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2005.071761.
Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials. Doc No 50; 1993.
Peters GW, Tao W, Wei W, Miccio J, Jethwa K, Cecchini M, Johung K. Publication bias in gastrointestinal oncology trials performed over the past decade. Oncologist. 2021;26(8):660–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13759.
Yang HH, Tsai M, Mukdad L, St John M. Positive outcome bias in the influential otolaryngology clinical trial literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;170(3):812–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.562.
Misemer BS, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW. Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional analysis. Trials. 2016;17(1):473. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1595-7.
Gotay CC. Accrual to cancer clinical trials: directions from the research literature. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33(5):569–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(91)90214-w.
Winn RJ. Obstacles to the accrual of patients to clinical trials in the community setting. Semin Oncol. 1994;21(4 Suppl 7):112–7.
Massett HA, Mishkin G, Rubinstein L, Ivy S, Denicoff A, Godwin E, DiPiazza K, Bolognese J, Zwiebel J, Abrams J. Challenges facing early phase trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute: an analysis of corrective action plans to improve accrual. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(22):5408–16. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0338.
Baldi I, Lanera C, Berchialla P, Gregori D. Early termination of cardiovascular trials as a consequence of poor accrual. analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov 2006-2015 BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):013482. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013482.
Carlisle B, Kimmelman J, Ramsay T, MacKinnon N. Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(1):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774514558307.
Dugas M, Amler S, Lange M, Gerss J, Breil B, Kopcke W. Estimation of patient accrual rates in clinical trials based on routine data from hospital information systems. Methods Inf Med. 2009;48(3):263–6. https://doi.org/10.3414/ME0582.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceived and designed study: T.L., V.V.; data collection: T.L., E.S., A.S., R.R., P.N., G.B; data analysis performed: T.L., V.V., E.S.; manuscript preparation: T.L., V.V., E.S; manuscript review and approval: T.L., E.S., A.S., R.R., P.N., G.B., V.V.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lippert, T., Schmucker, E., Shukla, A. et al. Publication Bias in Upper Gastrointestinal Oncology Clinical Trials. J Gastrointest Canc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-024-01047-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-024-01047-1