Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards
Article Abstract:
Scientists may be more likely to submit papers for publication if they think the results of the research are significant. A review of research studies approved by two institutional review boards (IRBs) at The Johns Hopkins Health Institutions up to 1980 found that 81% of 342 studies approved by the School of Medicine IRB (MED) and 66% of 172 studies approved by the School of Hygiene and Public Health IRB (PH) had been published by 1988. Researchers who participated in the studies were interviewed. They classified their study results as significant or not significant. For the MED studies, 89% of the significant studies were published, compared to 69% of those considered not significant. For the PH studies, 71% of significant studies were published compared to 58% of non-significant studies. Over 90% of the studies not published were never submitted for publication by the researchers.
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Masked monitoring in clinical trials - blind stupidity?
Article Abstract:
It may be unnecessary for the people who monitor clinical trials to be blinded to the identity of those who are receiving the treatment and those who get a placebo. A double-blind clinical trial means that neither the patients nor the doctors know whether the patient is getting the treatment or the placebo. In many cases, the committee monitoring the trial does not know either. However, this may be unnecessary and may place patients at risk. Many monitors can already guess by the nature of the side effects reported. Competency should take precedence over the desire for objectivity.
Publication Name: The New England Journal of Medicine
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0028-4793
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Beyond CONSORT: need for improved reporting standards for clinical trials
Article Abstract:
The goal of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) is laudable but many of the terms included are not well-defined. CONSORT is a checklist of data that medical researchers must include in every paper generated by a clinical trial that is submitted to a medical journal. It has been adopted by many medical journals, including JAMA, Lancet, the British Medical Journal and the Annals of Internal Medicine. Counts for the number lost to follow-up or the number of patients who completed a trial may vary depending on how these concepts are defined.
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Impact of tubal sterilization and vasectomy on female marital sexuality: results of a controlled longitudinal study
- Abstracts: Transdermal nicotine for smoking cessation: six-month results from two multicenter controlled clinical trials
- Abstracts: Infectious waste - mismatch between science and policy. Evaluation of the notification procedure for physician-assisted death in the Netherlands
- Abstracts: Prostate cancer drugs: Making sense of the options. Curable cancers. Early detection improves your chance of survival
- Abstracts: Wherever we go, public figures are baring their souls: enough already! Do we have a right to know a politician's secrets?