No difference found in time to publication by statistical significance of trial results: a methodological review.

OBJECTIVE: Time-lag from study completion to publication is a potential source of publication bias in randomised controlled trials. This study sought to update the evidence base by identifying the effect of the statistical significance of research findings on time to publication of trial results. DESIGN: Literature searches were carried out in four general medical journals from June 2013 to June 2014 inclusive (BMJ, JAMA, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine). SETTING: Methodological review of four general medical journals. PARTICIPANTS: Original research articles presenting the primary analyses from phase 2, 3 and 4 parallel-group randomised controlled trials were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time from trial completion to publication. RESULTS: The median time from trial completion to publication was 431 days (n = 208, interquartile range 278-618). A multivariable adjusted Cox model found no statistically significant difference in time to publication for trials reporting positive or negative results (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, p = 0.32). CONCLUSION: In contrast to previous studies, this review did not demonstrate the presence of time-lag bias in time to publication. This may be a result of these articles being published in four high-impact general medical journals that may be more inclined to publish rapidly, whatever the findings. Further research is needed to explore the presence of time-lag bias in lower quality studies and lower impact journals.

Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

Cardiac resynchronisation for patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction -- a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials generally suggest that cardiac resynchronisation improves outcomes in patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony. Our objective was to provide a valid synthesis of the effects of CRT on mortality, major morbidity, quality of life and implantation success rates. METHODS: Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomised trials, both blinded and open, comparing cardiac resynchronisation with control. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included hospitalisation for worsening heart failure, quality of life and implantation success rates. RESULTS: We identified 8 randomised trials which included 3380 patients and observed a total of 524 deaths. Follow-up ranged from 1 month to a mean of 29.4 months. Most trials were of high quality, with centrally administered randomisation and few patients lost to follow-up. CRT reduced mortality in these trials (odds ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88). In addition CRT reduced hospitalisation for worsening heart failure (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68) and improved quality of life as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (weighted mean difference -7.1, 95% CI -2.9 to -11.4). Implantation success rates in the trials were 87% or greater. CONCLUSION: Cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure characterised by dyssynchrony substantially reduces all-cause mortality, major morbidity and improves quality of life.