No difference found in time to publication by statistical significance of trial results: a methodological review

Laura Anne Jefferson; Caroline Marie Fairhurst; E Cooper; Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt; Thomas Torgerson; Elizabeth Cook; Puvanendran Tharmanathan; Elizabeth Sarah Cockayne; David John Torgerson

doi:10.1177/2054270416649283

No difference found in time to publication by statistical significance of trial results: a methodological review

Laura Anne Jefferson, Caroline Marie Fairhurst, E Cooper, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Thomas Torgerson, Elizabeth Cook, Puvanendran Tharmanathan, Elizabeth Sarah Cockayne, David John Torgerson

Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Objective: Time-lag from study completion to publication is a potential source of publication bias in randomised controlled trials. This study sought to update the evidence base by identifying the effect of the statistical significance of research findings on time to publication of trial results.Design: Literature searches were carried out in four general medical journals from June 2013 to June 2014 inclusive (BMJ, JAMA, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine). Setting: Methodological review of four general medical journals. Participants: Original research articles presenting the primary analyses from phase 2, 3 and 4 parallel-group randomised controlled trials were included. Main outcome measures: Time from trial completion to publication.Results: The median time from trial completion to publication was 431 days (n ¼ 208, interquartile range 278–618). A multivariable adjusted Cox model found no statistically significant difference in time to publication for trials reporting positive or negative results (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, p ¼ 0.32). Conclusion: In contrast to previous studies, this review did not demonstrate the presence of time-lag bias in time to publication. This may be a result of these articles being published in four high-impact general medical journals that may be more inclined to publish rapidly, whatever the findings. Further research is needed to explore the
presence of time-lag bias in lower quality studies and lower impact journals.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-8
Journal	Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Volume	7
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/2054270416649283
Publication status	Published - 5 Oct 2016

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1177/2054270416649283

RSM Open-2016-Jefferson-
© 2016 The Author(s).
Final published version, 284 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{cffa595cc6524723b16b3fd2d7c410cf,

title = "No difference found in time to publication by statistical significance of trial results: a methodological review",

abstract = "Objective: Time-lag from study completion to publication is a potential source of publication bias in randomised controlled trials. This study sought to update the evidence base by identifying the effect of the statistical significance of research findings on time to publication of trial results.Design: Literature searches were carried out in four general medical journals from June 2013 to June 2014 inclusive (BMJ, JAMA, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine). Setting: Methodological review of four general medical journals. Participants: Original research articles presenting the primary analyses from phase 2, 3 and 4 parallel-group randomised controlled trials were included. Main outcome measures: Time from trial completion to publication.Results: The median time from trial completion to publication was 431 days (n ¼ 208, interquartile range 278–618). A multivariable adjusted Cox model found no statistically significant difference in time to publication for trials reporting positive or negative results (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, p ¼ 0.32). Conclusion: In contrast to previous studies, this review did not demonstrate the presence of time-lag bias in time to publication. This may be a result of these articles being published in four high-impact general medical journals that may be more inclined to publish rapidly, whatever the findings. Further research is needed to explore thepresence of time-lag bias in lower quality studies and lower impact journals.",

author = "Jefferson, {Laura Anne} and Fairhurst, {Caroline Marie} and E Cooper and Hewitt, {Catherine Elizabeth} and Thomas Torgerson and Elizabeth Cook and Puvanendran Tharmanathan and Cockayne, {Elizabeth Sarah} and Torgerson, {David John}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2016 The Author(s).",

year = "2016",

month = oct,

day = "5",

doi = "10.1177/2054270416649283",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

pages = "1--8",

journal = "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine",

issn = "0141-0768",

publisher = "SAGE",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No difference found in time to publication by statistical significance of trial results: a methodological review

AU - Jefferson, Laura Anne

AU - Fairhurst, Caroline Marie

AU - Cooper, E

AU - Hewitt, Catherine Elizabeth

AU - Torgerson, Thomas

AU - Cook, Elizabeth

AU - Tharmanathan, Puvanendran

AU - Cockayne, Elizabeth Sarah

AU - Torgerson, David John

PY - 2016/10/5

Y1 - 2016/10/5

N2 - Objective: Time-lag from study completion to publication is a potential source of publication bias in randomised controlled trials. This study sought to update the evidence base by identifying the effect of the statistical significance of research findings on time to publication of trial results.Design: Literature searches were carried out in four general medical journals from June 2013 to June 2014 inclusive (BMJ, JAMA, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine). Setting: Methodological review of four general medical journals. Participants: Original research articles presenting the primary analyses from phase 2, 3 and 4 parallel-group randomised controlled trials were included. Main outcome measures: Time from trial completion to publication.Results: The median time from trial completion to publication was 431 days (n ¼ 208, interquartile range 278–618). A multivariable adjusted Cox model found no statistically significant difference in time to publication for trials reporting positive or negative results (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, p ¼ 0.32). Conclusion: In contrast to previous studies, this review did not demonstrate the presence of time-lag bias in time to publication. This may be a result of these articles being published in four high-impact general medical journals that may be more inclined to publish rapidly, whatever the findings. Further research is needed to explore thepresence of time-lag bias in lower quality studies and lower impact journals.

AB - Objective: Time-lag from study completion to publication is a potential source of publication bias in randomised controlled trials. This study sought to update the evidence base by identifying the effect of the statistical significance of research findings on time to publication of trial results.Design: Literature searches were carried out in four general medical journals from June 2013 to June 2014 inclusive (BMJ, JAMA, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine). Setting: Methodological review of four general medical journals. Participants: Original research articles presenting the primary analyses from phase 2, 3 and 4 parallel-group randomised controlled trials were included. Main outcome measures: Time from trial completion to publication.Results: The median time from trial completion to publication was 431 days (n ¼ 208, interquartile range 278–618). A multivariable adjusted Cox model found no statistically significant difference in time to publication for trials reporting positive or negative results (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, p ¼ 0.32). Conclusion: In contrast to previous studies, this review did not demonstrate the presence of time-lag bias in time to publication. This may be a result of these articles being published in four high-impact general medical journals that may be more inclined to publish rapidly, whatever the findings. Further research is needed to explore thepresence of time-lag bias in lower quality studies and lower impact journals.

U2 - 10.1177/2054270416649283

DO - 10.1177/2054270416649283

M3 - Article

SN - 0141-0768

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

JF - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

IS - 10

ER -