The scientific impact of positive and negative phase 3 cancer clinical trials

JAMA Oncology

Volumn 2, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 875-881

  Unger, Joseph M ^a   Barlow, William E ^a   Ramsey, Scott D ^a   LeBlanc, Michael ^a   Blanke, Charles D ^b   Hershman, Dawn L ^c  

^a Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; NEOPLASMS; ONCOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PUBLISHING; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 85010680111     PISSN: 23742437     EISSN: 23742445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6487     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Soares HP, et al. Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(6): 632-642.
2. 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;(1):MR000006.
3. Ramsey S, Scoggins J. Commentary: practicing on the tip of an information iceberg? evidence of underpublication of registered clinical trials in oncology. Oncologist. 2008;13(9):925-929.
4. Soares HP, Kumar A, Daniels S, et al. Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments? JAMA. 2005;293 (8):970-978.
5. Korn EL, Freidlin B, Mooney M, Abrams JS. Accrual experience of National Cancer Institute Cooperative Group phase III trials activated from 2000 to 2007. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(35):5197-5201.
6. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972;178(4060):471-479.
7. Narin F. Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity.Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 1976.
8. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986; 73(1):13-22.
9. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42(1):121-130.
10. PanW. Akaike's information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics. 2001; 57(1):120-125.
11. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(10):1529-1541.
12. National Institutes of Health launches "ClinicalTrials.gov" [news release]. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; February 29, 2000. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20040831/news /press-releases/clntrlpr00.html. Accessed March 4, 2016.
13. Djulbegovic B. The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research. Cancer Control. 2009;16(4):342-347.
14. Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr, Albain KS. Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(27):2061-2067.
15. Unger JM, Barlow WE, Martin DP, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes among cancer patients treated in and out of clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(3):dju002.
16. Hershman DL, Unger JM. 'Minority report': how best to analyze clinical trial data to address disparities. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;118(3): 519-521.
17. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits,Minimizing Risk. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.
18. Kent EE, Mitchell SA, Castro KM, et al. Cancer care delivery research: building the evidence base to support practice change in community oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(24):2705-2711.
19. Users Guide. Version 4.0. ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com. https://clinicalstudydatarequest.com. Accessed December 12, 2015.
20. The YODA Project. Welcome to the YODA Project. http://yoda.yale.edu/welcome-yoda -project. Accessed December 12, 2015.
21. Khabsa M, Giles CL. The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One. 2014;9(5): e93949.
22. Harzing A. A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics. 2014;98(1):565-575.
23. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus andWeb of Science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3:7.
24. Meho LI, Yank K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty:Web of Science vs Scopus and Google Scholar. J AmSoc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(13):2105-2125.
25. Fortin JM, Currie DJ. Big science vs little science: how scientific impact scales with funding. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65263.
26. King DA. The scientific impact of nations. Nature. 2004;430(6997):311-316.
27. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, Chute R. A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One. 2009;4(6):e6022.