Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. News & Views
  2. Restoring invisible...
  3. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings
CCBYNC Open access
Analysis

Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2865 (Published 13 June 2013) Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2865

Data supplement

  • Web Extra

    RIATAR tool for documenting the RIAT process (as supplied by the author)

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Related articles

EditorialRestoring the integrity of the clinical trial evidence base
NewsIndependent researchers should have right to publish trial results if original researchers don’t, campaigners say

See more

Cited by...

  • Restoring invisible and abandoned trials of gabapentin for neuropathic pain: a clinical and methodological investigation
  • Adjuvant-containing control arms in pivotal quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine trials: restoration of previously unpublished methodology
  • Clinical Decision Support Systems for Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Primary Care: A Scoping Review
  • Institute for Scientific Freedom
  • Research integrity and the law that never was
  • Essential medicines and the challenges in the Evidence-Based Manifesto
  • Restoring biomedical literature with RIAT
  • Publication of interventional phase 3 and 4 clinical trials in radiation oncology: an observational study
  • Update on Pediatric Overuse
  • Discontinuation and Nonpublication of Randomized Clinical Trials Conducted in Children
  • How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors
  • Why cancer screening has never been shown to "save lives"--and what we can do about it
  • Paroxetine and Study 329: what we already knew and when
  • No correction, no retraction, no apology, no comment: paroxetine trial reanalysis raises questions about institutional responsibility
  • Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence
  • Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting
  • Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study
  • Inadequacy of remote desktop interface for independent reanalysis of data from drug trials
  • Colorectal cancer: a cautionary tale
  • Operating to remove recurrent colorectal cancer: have we got it right?
  • The CEA Second-Look Trial: a randomised controlled trial of carcinoembryonic antigen prompted reoperation for recurrent colorectal cancer
  • Antidepressant efficacy of agomelatine: meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies
  • Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry?
  • Who is responsible for publishing the results of old trials?
  • Editor's reply to Smith
  • Putting GlaxoSmithKline to the test over paroxetine
  • Sharing data from clinical trials: where we are and what lies ahead
  • How should clinical trial data be shared?
  • YODA and truth seeking in medicine
  • Independent researchers should have right to publish trial results if original researchers don't, campaigners say
  • Restoring the integrity of the clinical trial evidence base
Back to top