Welcome to our new website! If this is the first time you are logging in on the new site, you will need to reset your password. Please contact us at email@example.com if you need assistance.
Your membership opens the door to free learning resources on demand. Check out the Member Knowledge Center for free webcasts, publications and online courses.
Hear from leaders around the globe as they share insights about their experiences and lessons learned throughout their certification journey.
The Learning Portal will be under maintenance Monday, 6 December between 6 AM and 5 PM EST. Portal functionality will be unavailable during this window.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
Posted 04 January 2012 | By Alexander Gaffney, RAC
A series of studies published this week in the British Medical Journal by groups of researchers from various universities have found serious lapses in clinical trial reporting and transparency.
Among the findings:
"The influence of funding body and sponsor seems to be considerable. Industry funded trials subject to mandatory reporting were more likely to report results compared with other funders," wrote the Nottingham researchers. "Phase III and IV studies seem more likely to be reported than phase II studies."
"[The] current culture of research needs to prioritize the timely public dissemination of research findings, ideally via peer-reviewed journals, for research funded by both public and private sources," said the first author of the Yale study, Dr. Joseph Ross.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel journalist John Fauber noted that the difficulties of finding and accessing unpublished data had been a major component Vytorin, Avandia, and Multaq scandals.
Richard Lehman, MD, concluded that a solution might include subjecting researchers who fail to submit data to "disciplinary action by professional organizations."
Tags: Published, Transparency, NIH, BMJ, Latest News, studies, study, clinical trials
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.