Factors associated with publication of randomized phase III cancer trials in journals with a high impact factor

Current Oncology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2014, Pages

  Tang, P A ^a   Pond, G R ^b   Welch, S ^c   Chen, Eric X ^d  

^a TOM BAKER CANCER CENTRE   (Canada)

^b JURAVINSKI CANCER CENTRE   (Canada)

^c Department of Medical Oncology ^*  (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cancer trials; Impact factor; Predictive factors; Publication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905696171     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17187729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3747/co.21.1937     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972;178:471-9.
2. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314:498-502.
3. Adam D. The counting house. Nature 2002;415:726-9.
4. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 2002;287:2847-50.
5. Jimenez-Contreras E, Delgado Lopez-Cozar E, Ruiz-Perez R, Fernandez VM. Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research. Nature 2002;417:898.
6. Taubes G. Measure for measure in science. Science 1993;260:884-6.
7. Littner Y, Mimouni FB, Dollberg S, Mandel D. Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:1036-7.
8. Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, Tannock IF, Krzyzanowska MK. Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5458-64.
9. Peppercorn J, Blood E, Winer E, Partridge A. Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer 2007;109:1239-46.
10. Tam VC, Hotte SJ. Consistency of phase iii clinical trial abstracts presented at an annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology compared with their subsequent full-text publications. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2205-11.
11. You B, Gan HK, Pond GR, Chen EX. Consistency in reporting of primary endpoints (pep) from registration to publication for modern randomized oncology phase iii trials [abstract 6031]. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:. [Available online at: http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/15_suppl/6031; cited May 25, 2014]
12. Armitage P. Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics 1955;11:375-86.
13. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The consort statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9.
14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The consort statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191-4.
15. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D on behalf of the consort Group. consort 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:726-32.
16. Yanada M, Narimatsu H, Suzuki T, Matsuo K, Naoe T. Randomized controlled trials of treatments for hematologic malignancies: study characteristics and outcomes. Cancer 2007;110:334-9.
17. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294:218-28.
18. Gluud LL, Sorensen TI, Gotzsche PC, Gluud C. The journal impact factor as a predictor of trial quality and outcomes: cohort study of hepatobiliary randomized clinical trials. AM J Gastroenterol 2005;100:2431-5.
19. Sterne JE, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Ver. 5.0.2. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2009.
20. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990;263:1385-9.
21. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867-72.
22. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;:MR000006.
23. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 2003;290:495-501.
24. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS One 2008;3:e3081.
25. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;:MR000031.
26. De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF. The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol 1992;3:187-91.
27. Timmer A, Hilsden RJ, Cole J, Hailey D, Sutherland LR. Publication bias in gastroenterological research-a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:7.
28. Camacho LH, Bacik J, Cheung A, Spriggs DR. Presentation and subsequent publication rates of phase i oncology clinical trials. Cancer 2005;104:1497-504.
29. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002;287:2825-8.
30. Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aust 2006;184:621-6.
31. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000;356:635-8.
32. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70.
33. Knox KS, Adams JR, Djulbegovic B, Stinson TJ, Tomor C, Bennet CL. Reporting and dissemination of industry versus non-profit sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology. Ann Oncol 2000;11:1591-5.
34. Ernst E, Kienbacher T. Chauvinism. Nature 1991;352:560.
35. Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998;280:246-7.
36. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
37. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60.
38. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 2002;287:2801-4.
39. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 2004;328:22-4.