Étiquette : negative results

Catégories
EN

Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

Authors : Bruno Laviolle, Clara Locher, Jean-Sébastien Allain, Quentin Le Cornu, Pierre Charpentier, Marie Lefebvre, Clémence Le Pape, Cyril Leven, Clément Palpacuer, Clémence Pontoizeau, Eric Bellissant, Florian Naudet

Studies with negative results are less likely to be published than others, potentially leading to publication bias. Introduced in 2000, trial registration could have participated in decreasing the proportion of unpublished studies. We assessed the proportion of negative randomized controlled trials (RCT) over the last 20 years.

We searched Medline for RCT published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The primary endpoint was the proportion of negative (final comparison on the primary study-endpoint without statistical significance or favoring the control arm) studies published in 2000 and 2020.

Factors independently associated with the publication of negative studies were identified using multivariable analysis. A total of 1,542 studies were included. The proportion of negative RCT significantly increased between 2000 and 2020 (from 27.6% to 37.4%; P = 0.01), however, the trend over time was not significant (P = 0.203). In multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher proportion of published negative studies: superiority (P < 0.001), two-group trials (P < 0.001), number of patients ≥510 (P < 0.001), cardiology trials (P = 0.003), emergency/critical care trials (P < 0.001), obstetrics trials (P = 0.032), surgery trials (P = 0.006), pneumology trials (P = 0.029).

Exclusive industry funding was associated with a lower proportion of published negative studies (P < 0.001). The proportion of published negative studies in 2020 was higher only when compared to 2000. During the two decades, no trend was noticeable. There is no clear relationship between trial registration and the publication of negative results over time.

URL : Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3535

Catégories
FR

Dissimuler ou disséminer ? Une étude sur le sort réservé aux résultats négatifs

Auteures/Authors : Marie-Emilia Herbet, Jérémie Leonard, Maria Santangelo, Lucie Albaret

Une enquête composée de 34 questions a été adressée à des chercheurs en chimie, physique, sciences de l’ingénieur et de l’environnement, en vue d’identifier leur rapport aux résultats de recherche infructueux ainsi que les freins et les leviers de leur diffusion.

L’étude se fonde sur 310 réponses complètes émanant de participants affiliés à des établissements de recherche et d’enseignement français. Menée dans le cadre du projet Datacc, porté par les bibliothèques universitaires de Lyon et Grenoble Alpes, engagées dans l’accompagnement des chercheurs à l’ouverture des données de recherche, notre étude permet de combler le déficit de données sur le sujet au regard des disciplines concernées.

Elle relève que 81% des chercheurs interrogés ont déjà produit des résultats négatifs pertinents et 75% se disent prêts à publier ce type de données. Pourtant, seuls 12,5% des répondants ont déjà eu l’occasion de le faire dans une revue scientifique. Ce contraste béant entre l’intention et la pratique soulève des interrogations sur les obstacles en présence et les solutions potentielles à apporter.

URL : Dissimuler ou disséminer ? Une étude sur le sort réservé aux résultats négatifs

Original location : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03371040

Catégories
EN

Invisible science: publication of negative research results

Authors : Luis Fernando Sayão, Luana Farias Sales, Carla Beatriz Marques Felipe

An important part of scientific research activities yield negative results – non-confirmatory and null data, inconclusive experiments, unexpected data. These results permeate the entire research cycle and constitute an important part of the full scientific knowledge flow generation.

However, despite the acknowledgment that it is the non-confirmatory findings that result in the rejection of consolidated hypotheses that drive the progress of science, most of these investigation routes are not documented.

Growing competition for resources, tenure, and impact publications induces researchers to produce “positive” results that are more likely to be published, interfering with the principles of science reproducibility and self-correction and in the scientific communication cycle.

This study aims to review negative results incorporation in the traditional academic publication cycle. It also seeks to identify and systematize the main barriers that prevent researchers from publishing negative results.

This exploratory study is based methodologically on the scarce literature on the subject. It confirms the initial assumption that few scientific journals accept, edit special issues or are dedicated to the publication of negative results.

URL : Invisible science: publication of negative research results

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202133e200009

Catégories
EN

Researcher’s Perceptions on Publishing “Negative” Results and Open Access

Authors : Lucía Echevarría, Alberto Malerba, Virginia Arechavala-Gomeza

Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls.

As part of COST Action “DARTER”, a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing.

Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of “negative” results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.

URL : Researcher’s Perceptions on Publishing “Negative” Results and Open Access

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1089/nat.2020.0865