
doi: 10.1111/jep.12692
pmid: 28090730
AbstractRationale, aims, and objectivesSeveral studies have found that about half of research results from clinical trials are never published. Until now, there has been little information on the views that funding agencies of biomedical research in Europe have regarding this issue and its possible solutions.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted among funding agencies from 34 European countries. Participants were asked about their opinions, policies, and potential solutions regarding dissemination bias. On the basis of the results of this survey and the input of the OPEN Consortium and of representatives of stakeholder groups in the knowledge generation process, we formulated recommendations for funding agencies to reduce dissemination bias.ResultsWe received responses from 64 funding agencies of biomedical medicine from most European countries, out of 245 that were contacted (26%). Of these, 56 funded research at the national and/or international level and were therefore eligible to participate. Policies encouraging publication increased over time: 33 (58.9%) of agencies enforced them in 2005 compared to 38 (67.6%) in 2012. However, only 13 (23.2%) had knowledge of the publications related to research funded in 2005, 23 (41.1%) were able to provide only an estimate, and 20 (35.7%) did not know at all. Regarding recommendations to control dissemination bias, we propose that funding agencies request the dissemination of research results irrespective of the direction of findings. We also call for measures that allow evaluating funded projects past the contractual period and until dissemination of results. Funding agencies should create publicly accessible databases with information on funded projects and dissemination efforts.ConclusionDespite having policies to encourage publication of results, most funding agencies fail to implement such measures or to ensure compliance. We propose recommendations that could be incorporated in the blueprint of calls for proposals and contracts agreed upon by funding agencies and grant recipients.
publication bias, clinical trials, Clinical Trials as Topic, evaluation, Biomedical Research, Financial Management, Information Dissemination, 610, the OPEN Project, dissemination bias, Europe, medical ethics, Research Design, clinical trials ; dissemination bias ; evaluation ; medical ethics ; publication bias ; the OPEN Project, Research Support as Topic, Humans, Ethics, Medical, Publication Bias
publication bias, clinical trials, Clinical Trials as Topic, evaluation, Biomedical Research, Financial Management, Information Dissemination, 610, the OPEN Project, dissemination bias, Europe, medical ethics, Research Design, clinical trials ; dissemination bias ; evaluation ; medical ethics ; publication bias ; the OPEN Project, Research Support as Topic, Humans, Ethics, Medical, Publication Bias
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
