Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Showell, M.G., Cole, S., Clarke, M.J., DeVito, N.J., Farquhar, C., & Jordan, V. (2024). Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11. "
Appraisal of: "Showell, M.G., Cole, S., Clarke, M.J., DeVito, N.J., Farquhar, C., & Jordan, V. (2024). Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11. "
Reviewer(s):
Alan Lovell
Sophie Robinson
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Showell, M.G., Cole, S., Clarke, M.J., DeVito, N.J., Farquhar, C., & Jordan, V. (2024). Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11. Art. No.: MR000011. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3.
Short description:
This Cochrane methodology review systematically examined 204 studies tracking 165,135 clinical trials to assess publication rates and time to publication. The review found that only 53% of trials were published, with a median time of 4.8 years from enrolment and 2.1 years from completion. Trials with positive results, larger sample sizes, non-industry funding, and multicentre designs were more likely to be published and published faster.
Meta-analyses revealed that positive results increased the odds of publication (OR 2.69) and shortened time to publication (HR 1.92). Large trials (OR 1.92) and non-industry-funded trials (OR 2.13) also showed higher publication rates and faster dissemination. The review highlights persistent publication and time-lag biases, with implications for systematic reviews and healthcare decision-making.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
High heterogeneity across studies (I² often >90%) limits generalizability.
Possible overlap in trial cohorts across studies may lead to unit-of-analysis errors.
Positivity assessments may be subjective in some studies.
The included studies varied in their methods, the type of trials they examined and their quality.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
Time to publication metrics may be skewed by outlier studies or inconsistent definitions.
The reliance on registry data may miss trials not properly registered or updated.
The review focuses on journal publication and does not fully account for results posted on registries.
Study Type:
Systematic Methodology Review
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Publication rates
Clinical trials
Page updated
Report abuse