Article Text

SP0204 Ensuring that Negative Trials Are Published? Do Clinical Trial Registries Have a Role?
  1. D. Felson1,2
  1. 1Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  2. 2Clinical Epidemiology, Boston University, Boston, United States


Publication bias, the failure of small negative trials to be published, has been well documented in all fields of medicine, including rheumatic disease. Evaluating a treatment by summarizing data from only published trials creates an inaccurately rosy picture of a treatment's efficacy and safety especially when trials have been carried out that remain unpublished. Treatments shown to be ineffective have sometimes been painted as effective in published trial data. Web-based clinical trial registries such as were created to encourage trialists to publish trial protocols and to even report trial results in these registries. Editors of major medical journals have required prerecruitment registration of trial protocols, creating further pressure to register trials. Current evidence suggests that while trials are increasingly being registered, negative trial results are not necessarily reported there, so that publication bias persists. New strategies to enhance the likeihood of detecting the existence of negative trials include changes in requirements for trial registration and the possible availability of trial data through companies and regulatory agencies.

Disclosure of Interest None declared

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.