Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 May 16:2:31.
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-31.

Strategies for obtaining unpublished drug trial data: a qualitative interview study

Affiliations

Strategies for obtaining unpublished drug trial data: a qualitative interview study

Nicole Wolfe et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Authors of systematic reviews have difficulty obtaining unpublished data for their reviews. This project aimed to provide an in-depth description of the experiences of authors in searching for and gaining access to unpublished data for their systematic reviews, and to give guidance on best practices for identifying, obtaining and using unpublished data.

Methods: This is a qualitative study analyzing in-depth interviews with authors of systematic reviews who have published Cochrane reviews or published systematic reviews outside of The Cochrane Library. We included participants who 1) were the first or senior author of a published systematic review of a drug intervention, 2) had expertise in conducting systematic reviews, searching for data, and assessing methodological biases, and 3) were able to participate in an interview in English. We used non-random sampling techniques to identify potential participants. Eighteen Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 agreed to be interviewed (89% response rate). Twenty-four non-Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 were interviewed (67% response rate).

Results: Respondents had different understandings of what was meant by unpublished data, including specific outcomes and methodological details. Contacting study authors was the most common method used to obtain unpublished data and the value of regulatory agencies as a data source was underappreciated. Using the data obtained was time consuming and labor intensive. Respondents described the collaboration with other colleagues and/or students required to organize, manage and use the data in their reviews, generally developing and using templates, spreadsheets and computer programs for data extraction and analysis. Respondents had a shared belief that data should be accessible but some had concerns about sharing their own data. Respondents believed that obtaining unpublished data for reviews has important public health implications. There was widespread support for government intervention to ensure open access to trial data.

Conclusions: Respondents uniformly agreed that the benefit of identifying unpublished data was worth the effort and was necessary to identify the true harms and benefits of drugs. Recent actions by government, such as increased availability of trial data from the European Medicines Agency, may make it easier to acquire critical drug trial data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant flowchart.

References

    1. Chan A, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–2465. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Norris S, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Fu R, Abou-Setta AM, Viswanathan MS, McPheeters ML. Selective Outcome Reporting as a Source of Bias in Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC110-EF. AHRQ. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD; 2012. - PubMed
    1. Scherer R, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2 MR000005. - PubMed
    1. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5:1561–1570. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Turner E, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Eng J Med. 2008;358:252–260. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa065779. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances