Abstract

BackgroundHealthcare 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionAn 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.

Highlights

  • Healthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles

  • initiated trials (IITs) funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and industry sponsored trials (ISTs)

  • Identification of secondary research articles citing primary published articles To assess the research impact of the included trials, we investigated whether or not published articles were cited by secondary research articles, i.e. systematic reviews/ meta-analyses and clinical guidelines

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Healthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. Decisions in healthcare are ideally built on three pillars, the experience of the clinician, the wishes and values of the patient, and the best available external evidence, i.e. results from clinical research [1]. Information about detailed study methods is important, since only they allow to appraise the validity, reliability and applicability of clinical evidence to clinical practice [3]. Important study information cannot be considered for health care decisions and further research planning, which in turn could expose patients and future study participants to unnecessary risks [6]. Personnel resources and scarce research funds are badly invested or even wasted

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call