Timely and complete publication of economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials

Joanna C. Thorn*, Sian M. Noble, William Hollingworth

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aims Little is known about the extent and nature of publication bias in economic evaluations. Our objective was to determine whether economic evaluations are subject to publication bias by considering whether economic data are as likely to be reported, and reported as promptly, as effectiveness data.

Methods Trials that intended to conduct an economic analysis and ended before 2008 were identified in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register; a random sample of 100 trials was retrieved. Fifty comparator trials were randomly drawn from those not identified as intending to conduct an economic study. The trial start and end dates, estimated sample size and funder type were extracted. For trials planning economic evaluations, effectiveness and economic publications were sought; publication dates and journal impact factors were extracted. Effectiveness abstracts were assessed for whether they reached a firm conclusion that one intervention was most effective. Primary investigators were contacted about reasons for non-publication of results, or reasons for differential publication strategies for effectiveness and economic results.

Results Trials planning an economic study were more likely to be funded by government (p = 0.01) and larger (p = 0.003) than other trials. The trials planning an economic evaluation had a mean of 6.5 (range 2.7-13.2) years since the trial end in which to publish their results. Effectiveness results were reported by 70 %, while only 43 % published economic evaluations (p

Conclusions Trials that intend to conduct an economic analysis are less likely to report economic data than effectiveness data. Where economic results do appear, they are published later, and in journals with lower impact factors. These results suggest that economic output may be more susceptible than effectiveness data to publication bias. Funders, grant reviewers and trialists themselves should ensure economic evaluations are prioritized and adequately staffed to avoid potential problems with bias.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-85
Number of pages9
JournalPharmacoEconomics
Volume31
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Keywords

  • COST-EFFECTIVENESS
  • BIAS

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Timely and complete publication of economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this