Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials

Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the reliability of published research. In particular, this study focuses on the selective reporting of research findings in clinical trials, defined as the publication of only part of the findings originally recorded during a research study, on the basis of the results. Selective reporting can lead to concerns ranging from publishing flawed scientific knowledge, to skewing medical evidence, to wasting time and resources invested in the conduct of research. Drawing upon a unique hand-collected dataset, this study investigates the contextual factors associated with selective reporting. Using ‘risk of bias’ ratings assessed based on expert judgment and presented in systematic reviews of clinical literature, this study explores whether selective reporting is associated with: (1) the source of institutional support; and, (2) the type of innovation evaluated. The results indicate that the odds of selective reporting are higher for industry-funded studies than for publicly-funded studies; however, this effect is restricted to studies where at least one author is industry-affiliated. In addition, the results suggest that selective reporting is more likely in projects exploring radical innovation, compared to those investigating incremental innovation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1215-1228
Number of pages14
JournalResearch Policy
Volume47
Issue number7
Early online date17 Apr 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Innovation
Industry
Resources
Knowledge dissemination
Scientific knowledge
Rating
Institutional support
Wasting
Clinical trials
Radical innovation
Systematic review
Expert judgment
Incremental innovation
Industry studies
Contextual factors

Keywords

  • Reliability of research
  • Reproducibility crisis
  • Science policy
  • Scientific misconduct

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Strategy and Management
  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

@article{a226dcc6392a47f6882968ba7b805240,
title = "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting",
abstract = "This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the reliability of published research. In particular, this study focuses on the selective reporting of research findings in clinical trials, defined as the publication of only part of the findings originally recorded during a research study, on the basis of the results. Selective reporting can lead to concerns ranging from publishing flawed scientific knowledge, to skewing medical evidence, to wasting time and resources invested in the conduct of research. Drawing upon a unique hand-collected dataset, this study investigates the contextual factors associated with selective reporting. Using ‘risk of bias’ ratings assessed based on expert judgment and presented in systematic reviews of clinical literature, this study explores whether selective reporting is associated with: (1) the source of institutional support; and, (2) the type of innovation evaluated. The results indicate that the odds of selective reporting are higher for industry-funded studies than for publicly-funded studies; however, this effect is restricted to studies where at least one author is industry-affiliated. In addition, the results suggest that selective reporting is more likely in projects exploring radical innovation, compared to those investigating incremental innovation.",
keywords = "Reliability of research, Reproducibility crisis, Science policy, Scientific misconduct",
author = "Rossella Salandra",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.005",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "1215--1228",
journal = "Research Policy",
issn = "0048-7333",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials

T2 - Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting

AU - Salandra, Rossella

PY - 2018/9/30

Y1 - 2018/9/30

N2 - This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the reliability of published research. In particular, this study focuses on the selective reporting of research findings in clinical trials, defined as the publication of only part of the findings originally recorded during a research study, on the basis of the results. Selective reporting can lead to concerns ranging from publishing flawed scientific knowledge, to skewing medical evidence, to wasting time and resources invested in the conduct of research. Drawing upon a unique hand-collected dataset, this study investigates the contextual factors associated with selective reporting. Using ‘risk of bias’ ratings assessed based on expert judgment and presented in systematic reviews of clinical literature, this study explores whether selective reporting is associated with: (1) the source of institutional support; and, (2) the type of innovation evaluated. The results indicate that the odds of selective reporting are higher for industry-funded studies than for publicly-funded studies; however, this effect is restricted to studies where at least one author is industry-affiliated. In addition, the results suggest that selective reporting is more likely in projects exploring radical innovation, compared to those investigating incremental innovation.

AB - This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the reliability of published research. In particular, this study focuses on the selective reporting of research findings in clinical trials, defined as the publication of only part of the findings originally recorded during a research study, on the basis of the results. Selective reporting can lead to concerns ranging from publishing flawed scientific knowledge, to skewing medical evidence, to wasting time and resources invested in the conduct of research. Drawing upon a unique hand-collected dataset, this study investigates the contextual factors associated with selective reporting. Using ‘risk of bias’ ratings assessed based on expert judgment and presented in systematic reviews of clinical literature, this study explores whether selective reporting is associated with: (1) the source of institutional support; and, (2) the type of innovation evaluated. The results indicate that the odds of selective reporting are higher for industry-funded studies than for publicly-funded studies; however, this effect is restricted to studies where at least one author is industry-affiliated. In addition, the results suggest that selective reporting is more likely in projects exploring radical innovation, compared to those investigating incremental innovation.

KW - Reliability of research

KW - Reproducibility crisis

KW - Science policy

KW - Scientific misconduct

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045444358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.005

DO - 10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.005

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 1215

EP - 1228

JO - Research Policy

JF - Research Policy

SN - 0048-7333

IS - 7

ER -