Transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications: a survey of journal editors

<b>Objective:</b> To examine how medical journal editors perceive changes in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications over a 5-year period (2010 to 2015). <b>Methods:</b> From July to September 2015, a survey link was e-mailed to journal editors identified from the Thomson Reuters registry. Editors ranked their perception of a) change in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications; b) 8 ‘Publication Best Practices’ and the impact of each on transparency; and c) the importance and adoption of the previously published “10 Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research”. <b>Results:</b> Of 510 editors who opened the survey, a total of 293 editors comprised the analysis pool. Majority of respondents reported their location as the US (46%) or EU (45%) and most commonly reported editorial titles were deputy/assistant editor (36%), editor-in-chief (35%), and section editor (24%). More editors reported improved versus worsened transparency (63.5% vs 6.1%) and credibility (53.2% vs 10.4%). Best practices that contributed most to improved transparency were ‘disclosure of the study sponsor’ and ‘registration and posting of trial results.’ Respondents ranked the importance of 9 recommendations as moderate or extremely important, and adoption of all recommendations was ranked minimal to moderate. <b>Conclusions:</b> The 293 editors who responded perceived an improvement in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored publications from 2010 to 2015. Confirmation of the importance of 9/10 recommendations by the respondents was encouraging. Yet, low adoption rates suggest additional work is required by all stakeholders to improve best practices, transparency, and credibility.

研究目的：本研究旨在考察2010至2015年五年间，医学期刊编辑对企业赞助临床试验论文的透明度与可信度变化的认知。
研究方法：2015年7月至9月，研究团队通过电子邮件向汤森路透（Thomson Reuters）注册名录中收录的期刊编辑发送了调查问卷链接。邀请编辑对以下内容进行评分：a）企业赞助临床试验论文的透明度与可信度变化情况；b）8项「出版最佳实践（Publication Best Practices）」及其各自对透明度的影响；c）此前发布的《关于缩小企业赞助临床研究报告可信度差距的10项建议（10 Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research）》的重要性与采纳情况。
研究结果：在打开调查问卷的510名编辑中，最终共有293名编辑纳入分析样本。多数受访者的工作地点为美国（46%）或欧盟（45%），最常见的编辑职务依次为副编辑/助理编辑（36%）、总编辑（35%）以及栏目编辑（24%）。相较于透明度与可信度下滑的比例，更多编辑认为二者有所提升：透明度提升占比为63.5%，下滑占比为6.1%；可信度提升占比为53.2%，下滑占比为10.4%。对提升透明度贡献最大的两项出版最佳实践为「披露研究资助方」与「临床试验结果的注册与发布」。受访者将9项建议的重要性评为中等或极其重要，而所有建议的采纳程度均被评为极低至中等水平。
研究结论：参与回复的293名编辑均认为，2010至2015年间企业赞助的临床试验论文的透明度与可信度有所提升。受访者认可10项建议中的9项的重要性，这一结果令人鼓舞。但当前偏低的采纳率表明，所有利益相关方仍需开展更多工作，以优化出版最佳实践、提升透明度与可信度。