This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

lain Chalmers, FRCOG; Miriam Adams, SM; Kay Dickersin, PhD; Jini Hetherington; William Tarnow-Mordi, MRCP; Curtis Meinert, PhD; Susan Tonascia, MsC; Thomas C. Chalmers, MD

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1401-1405.

Abstract
Substantial numbers of clinical trials continue to be reported only in summary reports that present insufficient methodological details to permit informed judgments about the likely validity of the conclusions. Using a cohort of 176 controlled trials reported in summary form, we tested the hypotheses that they would be more likely to be followed by full reports if, on the basis of the information provided in the summary report, (1) the trial was judged to be methodologically sound, (2) the results favored the test treatment, and (3) the sample size was relatively large. The results of univariate and multivariate analyses provided support for only the third of these hypotheses. Investigators, as well as those who fund and sanction the conduct of clinical research, should make greater efforts to ensure that clinical trials are reported properly.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1401-1405)

Author Affiliations
From the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, England (Drs I. Chalmers and Tarnow-Mordi and Ms Hetherington); Technology Assessment Group, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass (Ms Adams and Dr T. Chalmers); and Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Md (Drs Dickersin and Meinert and Ms Tonascia).

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, England (Dr I. Chalmers).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Review: delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions have similar clinical outcomes in respiratory infections
Strickland
Evid. Based Nurs. 2008;11:46-46.
FULL TEXT  

Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts
Hopewell et al.
Journal of Information Science 2008;34:162-173.
ABSTRACT  

Evidence of publication bias in reporting acute stroke clinical trials.
Liebeskind et al.
Neurology 2006;67:973-979.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A background to acupuncture and its use in chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions
White
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 2006;126:219-227.
ABSTRACT  

Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals.
Kober et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:620-625.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Trends in the Risks and Benefits to Patients With Cancer Participating in Phase 1 Clinical Trials
Roberts et al.
JAMA 2004;292:2130-2140.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Factors Associated With Failure to Publish Large Randomized Trials Presented at an Oncology Meeting
Krzyzanowska et al.
JAMA 2003;290:495-501.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reviews of acupuncture for chronic neck pain: pitfalls in conducting systematic reviews
White et al.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:1224-1231.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making
Olson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2825-2828.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Short report: Do presenters to paediatric meetings get their work published?
Riordan
Arch. Dis. Child. 2000;83:524-526.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Electronic Trial Banks: A Complementary Method for Reporting Randomized Trials
Sim et al.
Med Decis Making 2000;20:440-450.
ABSTRACT  

The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Juni et al.
JAMA 1999;282:1054-1060.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Fate of Neuroradiologic Abstracts Presented at National Meetings in 1993: Rate of Subsequent Publication in Peer-Reviewed, Indexed Journals
Marx et al.
Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1999;20:1173-1177.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Unpublished Research From a Medical Specialty Meeting: Why Investigators Fail to Publish
Weber et al.
JAMA 1998;280:257-259.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publication Patterns of Papers Presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
HAMLET et al.
JBJS 1997;79:1138-43.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The CONSORT Statement
Junker et al.
JAMA 1996;276:1876-1877.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating Peer Reviews: Pilot Testing of a Grading Instrument
Feurer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:98-100.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating the Quality of Articles Published in Journal Supplements Compared With the Quality of Those Published in the Parent Journal
Rochon et al.
JAMA 1994;272:108-113.
ABSTRACT  

Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts: A Meta-analysis
Scherer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:158-162.
ABSTRACT  

All Buildings Great and Small: Design Review From High Rise to Houses
Stamps
Environment and Behavior 1994;26:402-420.
ABSTRACT  

Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results: Follow-up of Applications Submitted to Two Institutional Review Boards
Dickersin et al.
JAMA 1992;267:374-378.
ABSTRACT  

The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence
Dickersin
JAMA 1990;263:1385-1389.
ABSTRACT  

Underreporting Research Is Scientific Misconduct
Chalmers
JAMA 1990;263:1405-1408.
ABSTRACT