ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials that completed in 2010 and are published as manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature, and to assess the manuscript development history.DesignRetrospective, cross-sectional analysis.SettingClinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that completed in 2010 for approved, Pfizer prescription products in patients or vaccines in healthy participants.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of studies for which the primary outcome(s) was published and the median time from study completion to publication. The manuscript development history included the number of times a manuscript was submitted before it was accepted for publication.ResultsAmong registered clinical trials for which Pfizer was the sponsor that completed in 2010, 76 met all inclusion criteria. The primary outcome(s) for 65 (85%) studies was published in 71 manuscripts; the median time to publication was 31 months (range 3–63 months). Of the remaining 11 studies, 2 had been submitted to at least one journal, 2 had not yet been submitted and 7 had no plans to publish because the study had terminated early due to recruitment challenges. Manuscripts accepted at the first choice journal were published at median time of 28 months (range 8–63, n=31), those accepted at second choice journal were published at 32 months (3–45, n=19), and for those accepted at third choice journal, it was 40 months (range 24–53, n=13).ConclusionsThe publication rate and median time to publication from study completion for Pfizer-sponsored studies were comparable to those previously reported for combined analyses of industry and non-industry sectors. Opportunities exist for sponsors, authors and journals to explore ideas that would facilitate more timely publication for clinical trial results. However, to be effective, such changes may need to revisit the entire publication process.

No abstract

Objective: 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). Methods: From July to September 2015, a survey link was emailed 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". Results: Of 510 editors who opened the survey, the analysis pool comprised a total of 293 editors. The 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 nine recommendations as moderate or extremely important, and adoption of all recommendations was ranked minimal to moderate. Conclusions: The 293 editors who responded perceived an improvement in the 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 that additional work is required by all stakeholders to improve best practices, transparency and credibility.