Improving publication rates in a collaborative clinical trials research network

Is our public research money well spent? Publication of research outputs from Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded studies: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting of results from the projects and programmes funded by the Health Research Council (HRC) New Zealand.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Research projects and programmes funded by the HRC New Zealand from 2006 to 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

Publicly available data provided by the HRC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and proportion with evidence of publication and dissemination of a research output from HRC grants and the time taken to disseminate the results.

RESULTS

Of the 374 HRC grants from 2006 to 2014, there was no evidence of publication or reporting of any research output for 48 studies (13%). Of the 326 (87%) grants with research outputs, there was a mean dissemination time of 4.73 years (SD 2.37). The total funding provided by the HRC was NZ$471 663 336, while the 48 grants with no evidence of dissemination represented NZ$47 095 727 (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirteen per cent of the HRC projects and programmes from 2006 to 2014 have not contributed to the healthcare evidence as their results remain unknown.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals

BACKGROUND

Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.

STUDY TYPE

Meta-research.

POPULATION

Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included.

ASSESSMENT

Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24-0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts.

DATA CONCLUSION

Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Optimizing collaborative relationships in emergency medicine research

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) 2020 Academic Symposium Panel was to present recommendations for collaboration on (1) writing a grant application; (2) conducting a study; (3) writing an abstract; and (4) writing a manuscript.

METHODS

We assembled an expert panel of eight experienced emergency medicine clinician scientists from across Canada. Panel members performed literature searches for each of the four topics. Draft recommendations were developed and refined in an iterative fashion by panel members. We solicited external feedback on the draft recommendations online from identified researchers known to CAEP and in person at the Network of Canadian Emergency Researchers meeting in February 2020. We obtained additional feedback during an online symposium presentation on October 15th, 2020, open to all members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.

RESULTS

Four sets of recommendations were established for each component including: 14 for writing a grant application including relevant timelines; 23 for conducting a study; 13 for writing an abstract; and 18 for writing a manuscript. Forming a strong team, including patients, appropriate methodologists, content experts and a mix of senior and junior investigators, establishing and following clear timelines, and proactive communications were common themes.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer recommendations for research collaboration for (1) writing a grant, (2) conducting a study, (3) writing an abstract, and (4) writing a manuscript. We believe these recommendations will help to improve the science, improve grant success, and improve the impact of the abstracts and manuscripts.

Publication rates from biomedical and behavioral and social science R01s funded by the National Institutes of Health

Prior research has shown a serious lack of research transparency resulting from the failure to publish study results in a timely manner. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has increased its use of publication rate and time to publication as metrics for grant productivity. In this study, we analyze the publications associated with all R01 and U01 grants funded from 2008 through 2014, providing sufficient time for these grants to publish their findings, and identify predictors of time to publication based on a number of variables, including if a grant was coded as a behavioral and social sciences research (BSSR) grant or not. Overall, 2.4% of the 27,016 R01 and U01 grants did not have a publication associated with the grant within 60 months of the project start date, and this rate of zero publications was higher for BSSR grants (4.6%) than for non-BSSR grants (1.9%). Mean time in months to first publication was 15.2 months, longer for BSSR grants (22.4 months) than non-BSSR grants (13.6 months). Survival curves showed a more rapid reduction of risk to publish from non-BSSR vs BSSR grants. Cox regression models showed that human research (vs. animal, neither, or both) and clinical trials research (vs. not) are the strongest predictors of time to publication and failure to publish, but even after accounting for these and other predictors, BSSR grants continued to show longer times to first publication and greater risk of no publications than non-BSSR grants. These findings indicate that even with liberal criteria for publication (any publication associated with a grant), a small percentage of R01 and U01 grantees fail to publish in a timely manner, and that a number of factors, including human research, clinical trial research, child research, not being an early stage investigator, and conducting behavioral and social sciences research increase the risk of time to first publication.

Publication Bias: Association of Diagnostic Accuracy in Radiology Conference Abstracts with Full-Text Publication

Background Recent investigations have identified a faster time to publication for imaging studies with higher diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), but it is unknown whether such studies are more likely to be published. A higher probability of full-text publication for studies with higher DTA could have negative consequences on clinical decision making and patient care. Purpose To evaluate the proportion of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies presented as conference abstracts that reach full-text publication and to identify whether there is an association between diagnostic accuracy and full-text publication in peer-reviewed journals within 5 years after abstract submission. Materials and Methods Diagnostic accuracy research abstracts presented at the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Annual Meeting in 2011 and 2012 were evaluated between September 1, 2017, and January 11, 2018. Sensitivity and specificity from the abstracts were used to calculate the Youden index (sensitivity + specificity-1); additional abstract characteristics were extracted. To identify full-text publications within 5 years after abstract submission, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched, and authors were contacted. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess for associations between higher diagnostic accuracy and full-text publication. Results A total of 7970 abstracts were evaluated, and 405 were included. Of these, 288 (71%) reached full-text publication within 5 years after abstract submission. Logistic regression analysis accounting for several confounding variables failed to show an association between reported Youden index in the conference abstract and probability of full-text publication (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.99, 1.02; P = .21). Conclusion More than a quarter of abstracts presented at the RSNA Annual Meeting do not reach full-text publication in peer-reviewed journals. The magnitude of reported diagnostic accuracy was not associated with full-text publication, which is consistent with results of diagnostic accuracy studies in other medical specialties. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Fielding in this issue.

Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether higher reported accuracy estimates are associated with shorter time to publication among imaging diagnostic accuracy studies.

METHODS

We included primary imaging diagnostic accuracy studies, included in meta-analyses from systematic reviews published in 2015. For each primary study, we extracted accuracy estimates, participant recruitment periods and publication dates. Our primary outcome was the association between Youden's index (sensitivity + specificity - 1, a single measure of diagnostic accuracy) and time to publication.

RESULTS

We included 55 systematic reviews and 781 primary studies. Study completion dates were missing for 238 (30%) studies. The median time from completion to publication in the remaining 543 studies was 20 months (IQR 14-29). Youden's index was negatively correlated with time from completion to publication (rho = -0.11, p = 0.009). This association remained significant in multivariable Cox regression analyses after adjusting for seven study characteristics: hazard ratio of publication was 1.09 (95% CI 1.03-1.16, p = 0.004) per unit increase for logit-transformed estimates of Youden's index. When dichotomizing Youden's index by a median split, time from completion to publication was 20 months (IQR 13-33) for studies with a Youden's index below the median, and 19 months (14-27) for studies with a Youden's index above the median (p = 0.104).

CONCLUSION

Imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with higher accuracy estimates were weakly associated with a shorter time to publication.

KEY POINTS

• Higher accuracy estimates are weakly associated with shorter time to publication. • Lag in time to publication remained significant in multivariate Cox regression analyses. • No correlation between accuracy and time from submission to publication was identified.