Abstract
Planning and execution of clinical research and publication of results should conform to the highest ethical standards, given that human lives are at stake. However, economic incentives can generate conflicts of interest for investigators, who may be inclined to withhold unfavorable results or even tamper with the data. Analyzing p-values reported to the ClinicalTrials.gov registry with two different methodologies, we find suspicious patterns only for results from trials conducted by smaller industry sponsors, with presumably less reputation at stake. First, a density discontinuity test reveals an upward jump at the classical threshold for statistical significance for phase III results by small industry sponsors, suggesting some selective reporting. Second, we find an excess mass of significant results in phase III compared to phase II. However, once we link trials across phases, we can explain almost completely this excess mass for large industry sponsors by accounting for the incentives to selectively continue from phase II to phase III. In contrast, for trials sponsored by small pharmaceutical companies, selective continuation of trials economizing on research costs only explains less than one third of the increase in the share of significant results from phase II to phase III.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This is an observational study.
Funding Statement
This research is funded by the European Research Council through Advanced Grant 295835 (Evalidea).
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Not Applicable
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
* Funding by the European Research Council through grant 295835 (EVALIDEA) is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Marco Bonetti, Tarani Chandola, Sylvain Chassang, Francesco Decarolis, Edina Hot, John Ioannidis, Melissa Newham, Nicolas Serrano-Velarde, Tony Tse, and Deborah Zarin for helpful comments. All authors have contributed equally. The authors declare no competing interests. A complete replication package is available upon request from the authors. This paper draws on Christian Decker’s Master thesis “P-Hacking in Clinical Trials?”, supervised by Marco Ottaviani and Jérôme Adda, and defended on April 20, 2017 at Bocconi University.
