Advertisement

How many US obstetrical trials reach publication? A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed from 2007 to 2019

      BACKGROUND

      Obstetrical clinical trials are the foundation of evidence-based medicine during pregnancy. As more obstetrical trials are conducted, understanding the publication characteristics of these trials is of utmost importance to advance obstetrical health.

      OBJECTIVE

      This study aimed to characterize the frequency of publication and trial characteristics associated with publication among obstetrical clinical trials in the United States. We additionally sought to examine time from trial completion to publication.

      STUDY DESIGN

      This was a cross-sectional analysis of completed obstetrical trials with an intervention design and at least 1 site in the United States registered to ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2019. Trial characteristics were cross-referenced with PubMed to determine publication status up to 2021 using the National Clinical Trial identification number. Bivariable analyses were conducted to determine trial characteristics associated with publication. Multivariable logistic regression models controlling for prespecified covariates were generated to estimate the relationship between funding, primary purpose, and therapeutic foci with publication. Additional exploratory analyses of other trial characteristics were conducted. Time to publication was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression models.

      RESULTS

      Of the 1879 obstetrical trials with registered completion, a total of 575 (30.6%) had at least 1 site in the United States, were completed before October 1, 2019, and were included in this analysis. Between October 2007 and October 2019, fewer than two-thirds (N=348, 60.5%) of trials reached publication. Annual rates of publication ranged from 46.4% in 2018 to 70.0% in 2007. No difference was observed in publication by funding, primary purpose, or therapeutic foci (all P>.05). Trials with characteristics indicating high trial quality—including randomized allocation scheme, ≥50 participants enrolled, ≥2 sites, and presence of a data safety monitoring committee—had increased odds of publication compared with those without such characteristics (all P<.05). For example, studies with randomized allocation of intervention had 2-fold greater odds of publication than nonrandomized studies (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.30–3.37). Studies with ≥150 participants had nearly 8-fold odds of publication (adjusted odds ratio, 7.90; 95% confidence interval, 3.78–17.49) relative to studies with <50 participants. Temporal analysis demonstrated variability in time to publication among obstetrical trials, with a median time of 20.1 months after trial completion, and with most trials that reached publication having been published by 40 months. No difference was observed in time to publication by funding, primary purpose, or therapeutic foci (all P>.05).

      CONCLUSION

      Publication of obstetrical trials remains suboptimal, with significant differences observed between trials with indicators of high quality and those without. Most trials that reach publication are published within 2 years of registered completion on ClinicalTrials.gov.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Zarin DA
        • Tse T
        • Williams RJ
        • Califf RM
        • Ide NC.
        The ClinicalTrials.gov results database–update and key issues.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 852-860
        • Novitzke JM.
        The significance of clinical trials.
        J Vasc Interv Neurol. 2008; 1: 31
        • US National Library of Medicine
        FDAAA 801 and the final rule.
        2017 (Available at) (Accessed November 2, 2021)
        • Banno M
        • Tsujimoto Y
        • Kataoka Y.
        Studies registered in non-ClinicalTrials.gov accounted for an increasing proportion of protocol registrations in medical research.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 116: 106-113
      1. National Institutes of Health. NIH policy on the dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial information. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2017. Available at:https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/understanding/nih-policy.htm. Accessed November 2, 2021.

        • Haynes RB
        • Devereaux PJ
        • Guyatt GH.
        Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice.
        Vox Sang. 2002; 83: 383-386
        • Rauh S
        • Bowers A
        • Rorah D
        • et al.
        Evaluating the reproducibility of research in obstetrics and gynecology.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022; 269: 24-29
        • Chalmers I
        • Glasziou P.
        Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1341-1345
        • Ross JS
        • Mocanu M
        • Lampropulos JF
        • Tse T
        • Krumholz HM.
        Time to publication among completed clinical trials.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173: 825-828
        • Ross JS
        • Tse T
        • Zarin DA
        • Xu H
        • Zhou L
        • Krumholz HM.
        Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis.
        BMJ. 2012; 344: d7292
        • Steinberg JR
        • Weeks BT
        • Reyes GA
        • et al.
        The obstetrical research landscape: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials from 2007-2020.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021; 3100253
        • Stockmann C
        • Sherwin CM
        • Koren G
        • et al.
        Characteristics and publication patterns of obstetric studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.
        J Clin Pharmacol. 2014; 54: 432-437
        • Shields KE
        • Lyerly AD.
        Exclusion of pregnant women from industry-sponsored clinical trials.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 1077-1081
        • Gupta M
        • Petsalis M
        • Powers K
        • Chen HY
        • Chauhan SP
        • Wagner S.
        Randomized clinical trials in obstetrics-gynecology registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: characteristics and factors associated with publication.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020; 251: 223-228
        • Zwierzyna M
        • Davies M
        • Hingorani AD
        • Hunter J.
        Clinical trial design and dissemination: comprehensive analysis of clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed data since 2005.
        BMJ. 2018; 361: k2130
        • von Elm E
        • Altman DG
        • Egger M
        • et al.
        The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
        Lancet. 2007; 370: 1453-1457
      2. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Build Better, Faster Clinical Trials. 2021. Available at: https://ctti-clinicaltrials.org/. Accessed November 2, 2021.

        • Tse T
        • Fain KM
        • Zarin DA.
        How to avoid common problems when using ClinicalTrials.gov in research: 10 issues to consider.
        BMJ. 2018; 361: k1452
        • Turner B
        • Rajeshuni N
        • Tran EM
        • et al.
        Characteristics of ophthalmology trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2018.
        Am J Ophthalmol. 2020; 211: 132-141
        • Liu X
        • Zhang Y
        • Tang LL
        • et al.
        Characteristics of radiotherapy trials compared with other oncological clinical trials in the past 10 years.
        JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4: 1073-1079
        • Steinberg JR
        • Magnani CJ
        • Turner BE
        • et al.
        Early discontinuation, results reporting, and publication of gynecology clinical trials from 2007 to 2020.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 139: 821-831
        • Altman DG
        • Schulz KF
        • Moher D
        • et al.
        The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.
        Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663-694
        • Ross JS
        • Mulvey GK
        • Hines EM
        • Nissen SE
        • Krumholz HM.
        Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000144
        • Lee K
        • Bacchetti P
        • Sim I.
        Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis.
        PLoS Med. 2008; 5: e191
        • 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
        • Sreekrishnan A
        • Mampre D
        • Ormseth C
        • et al.
        Publication and dissemination of results in clinical trials of neurology.
        JAMA Neurol. 2018; 75: 890-891
        • Brewster R
        • Wong M
        • Magnani CJ
        • et al.
        Early discontinuation, results reporting, and publication of pediatric clinical trials.
        Pediatrics. 2022; 149e2021052557
        • Magnani CJ
        • Steinberg JR
        • Harmange CI
        • et al.
        Clinical trial outcomes in urology: assessing early discontinuation, results reporting and publication in ClinicalTrials.Gov Registrations 2007-2019.
        J Urol. 2021; 205: 1159-1168
        • Hudson KL
        • Collins FS.
        Sharing and reporting the results of clinical trials.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 355-356
        • Bala MM
        • Akl EA
        • Sun X
        • et al.
        Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 286-295
        • Huisman J
        • Smits J.
        Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective.
        Scientometrics. 2017; 113: 633-650
      3. Berghella V. Announcing American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM (AJOG MFM)! 2022. Available at: https://www.ajog.org/mfm#:∼:text=The%20American%20Journal%20of%20Obstetrics,acceptance%20rate%20of%20%CB%9C12%25. Accessed November 2, 2021.

        • Wright JD
        • Pawar N
        • Gonzalez JSR
        • et al.
        Scientific evidence underlying the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ practice bulletins.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 505-512
      4. Committee Opinion No. 646: ethical considerations for including women as research participants.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127: e100-e107
      5. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Ethical and Legal Issues Relating to the Inclusion of Women in Clinical Studies. Women and Health Research: Ethical and Legal Issues of Including Women in Clinical Studies: Volume 2: Workshop and Commissioned Papers. Mastroianni AC, Faden R, Federman D, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1999. PMID: 25144106.

        • Adam MP
        • Polifka JE
        • Friedman JM.
        Evolving knowledge of the teratogenicity of medications in human pregnancy.
        Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2011; 157C: 175-182
        • Thorpe PG
        • Gilboa SM
        • Hernandez-Diaz S
        • et al.
        Medications in the first trimester of pregnancy: most common exposures and critical gaps in understanding fetal risk.
        Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013; 22: 1013-1018
        • Mitchell AA
        • Gilboa SM
        • Werler MM.
        Medication use during pregnancy, with particular focus on prescription drugs: 1976-2008.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205 (e1–8): 51
        • Sheffield JS
        • Siegel D
        • Mirochnick M
        • et al.
        Designing drug trials: considerations for pregnant women.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 59: S437-S444
        • Osterman M
        • Hamilton B
        • Martin JA
        • Driscoll AK
        • Valenzuela CP.
        Births: final data for 2020.
        Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2021; 70: 1-50
        • Robledo CA
        • Yeung EH
        • Mendola P
        • et al.
        Examining the prevalence rates of preexisting maternal medical conditions and pregnancy complications by source: evidence to inform maternal and child research.
        Matern Child Health J. 2017; 21: 852-862
        • Bello NA
        • Zhou H
        • Cheetham TC
        • et al.
        Prevalence of hypertension among pregnant women when using the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association blood pressure guidelines and association with maternal and fetal outcomes.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4e213808
        • Doulaveris G
        • Vani K
        • Saccone G
        • Chauhan SP
        • Berghella V.
        Number and quality of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics published in the top general medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 4100509
        • Turner AM
        • Crowe EH
        • Ghose I
        • et al.
        Racial and ethnic representation in randomized clinical trials referenced in ACOG practice bulletins in obstetrics 2007-2021.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 4100590
        • Ditter KC
        • Crowe EH
        • Mendez-Figueroa H
        • et al.
        Obstetrical randomized controlled trials: individuals screened, approached, and enrolled.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 4100564
        • Reingewertz Y
        • Lutmar C.
        Academic in-group bias: an empirical examination of the link between author and journal affiliation.
        J Inf. 2018; 12: 74-86
        • Ware JJ
        • Munafò MR.
        Significance chasing in research practice: causes, consequences and possible solutions.
        Addiction. 2015; 110: 4-8
        • Marín-Franch I.
        Publication bias and the chase for statistical significance.
        J Optom. 2018; 11: 67-68
        • Squazzoni F
        • Bravo G
        • Farjam M
        • et al.
        Peer review and gender bias: a study on 145 scholarly journals.
        Sci Adv. 2021; 7: eabd0299
        • Kern-Goldberger AR
        • James R
        • Berghella V
        • Miller ES.
        The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 227 (e4): 43-50
        • Ucci MA
        • D'Antonio F
        • Berghella V
        Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 4100645
        • Gresham G
        • Meinert JL
        • Gresham AG
        • Meinert CL.
        Assessment of trends in the design, accrual, and completion of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov by sponsor type, 2000-2019.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3e2014682