User login
for a clinical trial
Photo by Esther Dyson
Cancer trials with negative results don’t make an immediate splash in the scientific literature, but they do have a long-term impact on research, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that first reports of positive phase 3 cancer trials were twice as likely as first reports of negative phase 3 cancer trials
to be cited in scientific journals.
But over time, when all articles associated with the trials were considered, the scientific impact of negative trials and positive trials was about the same.
“Negative trials aren’t scientific failures,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
“We found that they have a positive, lasting impact on cancer research.”
Dr Unger and his colleagues analyzed every randomized, phase 3 cancer trial completed by the cooperative group SWOG from 1984 to 2014. This amounted to 94 studies involving 46,424 patients.
Of those 94 studies, 26 were positive, meaning that the treatment tested performed measurably better than the standard treatment at the time.
Analyses revealed that primary manuscripts first announcing these encouraging results were published in journals with higher impact factors and were cited twice as often as primary manuscripts of negative trials.
The mean 2-year impact factor of the journals was 28 for positive trials and 18 for negative trials (P=0.007). And the mean number of citations per year was 43 for positive trials and 21 for negative trials (P=0.03).
However, when the researchers looked at the number of citations from all primary and secondary manuscripts, they did not see a significant difference between positive and negative trials. The mean number of citations per year was 55 and 45, respectively (P=0.53).
“Negative trials matter because they tell us what doesn’t work, which can be as important as what does,” said study author Dawn Hershman, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York.
“Negative trials are also critical for secondary research, which mines existing trial data to answer new questions in cancer care and prevention. Negative trials are used frequently in secondary research and add great value to the scientific community.” 
for a clinical trial
Photo by Esther Dyson
Cancer trials with negative results don’t make an immediate splash in the scientific literature, but they do have a long-term impact on research, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that first reports of positive phase 3 cancer trials were twice as likely as first reports of negative phase 3 cancer trials
to be cited in scientific journals.
But over time, when all articles associated with the trials were considered, the scientific impact of negative trials and positive trials was about the same.
“Negative trials aren’t scientific failures,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
“We found that they have a positive, lasting impact on cancer research.”
Dr Unger and his colleagues analyzed every randomized, phase 3 cancer trial completed by the cooperative group SWOG from 1984 to 2014. This amounted to 94 studies involving 46,424 patients.
Of those 94 studies, 26 were positive, meaning that the treatment tested performed measurably better than the standard treatment at the time.
Analyses revealed that primary manuscripts first announcing these encouraging results were published in journals with higher impact factors and were cited twice as often as primary manuscripts of negative trials.
The mean 2-year impact factor of the journals was 28 for positive trials and 18 for negative trials (P=0.007). And the mean number of citations per year was 43 for positive trials and 21 for negative trials (P=0.03).
However, when the researchers looked at the number of citations from all primary and secondary manuscripts, they did not see a significant difference between positive and negative trials. The mean number of citations per year was 55 and 45, respectively (P=0.53).
“Negative trials matter because they tell us what doesn’t work, which can be as important as what does,” said study author Dawn Hershman, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York.
“Negative trials are also critical for secondary research, which mines existing trial data to answer new questions in cancer care and prevention. Negative trials are used frequently in secondary research and add great value to the scientific community.”
for a clinical trial
Photo by Esther Dyson
Cancer trials with negative results don’t make an immediate splash in the scientific literature, but they do have a long-term impact on research, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
Researchers found that first reports of positive phase 3 cancer trials were twice as likely as first reports of negative phase 3 cancer trials
to be cited in scientific journals.
But over time, when all articles associated with the trials were considered, the scientific impact of negative trials and positive trials was about the same.
“Negative trials aren’t scientific failures,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.
“We found that they have a positive, lasting impact on cancer research.”
Dr Unger and his colleagues analyzed every randomized, phase 3 cancer trial completed by the cooperative group SWOG from 1984 to 2014. This amounted to 94 studies involving 46,424 patients.
Of those 94 studies, 26 were positive, meaning that the treatment tested performed measurably better than the standard treatment at the time.
Analyses revealed that primary manuscripts first announcing these encouraging results were published in journals with higher impact factors and were cited twice as often as primary manuscripts of negative trials.
The mean 2-year impact factor of the journals was 28 for positive trials and 18 for negative trials (P=0.007). And the mean number of citations per year was 43 for positive trials and 21 for negative trials (P=0.03).
However, when the researchers looked at the number of citations from all primary and secondary manuscripts, they did not see a significant difference between positive and negative trials. The mean number of citations per year was 55 and 45, respectively (P=0.53).
“Negative trials matter because they tell us what doesn’t work, which can be as important as what does,” said study author Dawn Hershman, MD, of Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York.
“Negative trials are also critical for secondary research, which mines existing trial data to answer new questions in cancer care and prevention. Negative trials are used frequently in secondary research and add great value to the scientific community.”