Unveiling The Importance Of Negative Results In Clinical Trials

By Bashar S. Shihabuddin MD, MS, FAAP, FACEP, chief scientific officer, BJEConsultants

In the realm of clinical research, where groundbreaking discoveries and innovative treatments often steal the limelight, the significance of negative results tends to be overlooked. Yet, behind the scenes, their absence from trial disclosures and publications can distort the narrative of medical advancements¹. However, negative results of clinical trials can have a role in enhancing the generalizability of research findings; therefore, there is an evolving landscape of initiatives aimed at promoting their reporting².

For example, while working in pediatric emergency medicine, I worked on the Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Out-of-Hospital (THAPCA-OH) trial (NCT00878644), which compared the efficacy of actively cooling children who experience cardiac arrest to a target temperature of 33.0°C with keeping them at a target temperature of 36.8°C closer to the physiologic body temperature. Cooling was beneficial in adult trials, so the hypothesis was that children may have similar benefits. In fact, cooling was found to have no significant benefit in survival with a good functional outcome at one year³. This negative result impacted patient care by directing medical staff to avoid interventions that could be unnecessary, and at times not available, at all hospitals caring for children.

While clinical trial disclosures and publications serve as the gateway to disseminating novel interventions and therapeutic breakthroughs, amid the rush to showcase positive outcomes, negative results are frequently relegated to the shadows or outright omitted. This omission can stem from various factors, including publication bias, where journals favor studies with positive findings, and industry influence, which may prioritize results that align with commercial interests⁴.

Moreover, researchers themselves may succumb to the pressure to produce favorable outcomes, especially when funding and career advancement hinge on successful findings⁵. Consequently, negative results, viewed as less impactful or prestigious, become casualties of selective reporting, perpetuating an incomplete understanding of interventions' efficacy and safety profiles.

The Value Of Negative Outcomes In Enhancing Generalizability

Contrary to popular perception, negative results are not synonymous with failure; rather, they constitute integral pieces of the scientific puzzle, enriching the tapestry of knowledge in several ways. One of their primary contributions lies in fostering the robustness and generalizability of research findings. By documenting interventions that did not yield the anticipated benefits or exhibited unforeseen adverse effects, negative results offer valuable insights into the limitations and nuances of therapeutic approaches⁶.

Negative outcomes may serve as cautionary tales, guiding future research endeavors away from unfruitful paths and prompting a more nuanced interpretation of data. They prevent the perpetuation of false leads and misconceptions, steering the scientific community toward more evidence-based practices and ensuring that patient care remains grounded in empirical evidence⁷.

The inclusion of negative results in meta-analyses and systematic reviews enables a more comprehensive evaluation of interventions' effectiveness across diverse populations and settings⁸. This broader perspective not only enhances clinical decision-making but also fosters a culture of transparency and intellectual honesty within the research community.

Guidance And Initiatives On Negative Clinical Trial Results Reporting

Recognizing the imperative of addressing the pervasive issue of underreporting negative results, various partners and organizations have championed initiatives aimed at promoting transparency and accountability in clinical trial disclosures. One notable endeavor is the AllTrials campaign, a global movement advocating for the registration and reporting of all clinical trials, regardless of their outcomes⁹. By urging researchers, sponsors, and regulatory bodies to uphold the principles of data transparency, AllTrials seeks to mitigate publication bias and ensure that negative results are accorded the same visibility as their positive counterparts.

Similarly, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the EMA, have instituted guidelines mandating the registration and disclosure of clinical trial results on publicly accessible platforms¹⁰. These regulatory frameworks not only promote data sharing and dissemination but also empower patients, clinicians, and policymakers to make informed decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of interventions' efficacy and safety profiles.

Scientific journals play a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of research dissemination by revising their editorial policies to prioritize the publication of negative results. By embracing transparency and inclusivity, journals can foster a culture of scientific integrity and intellectual humility, wherein negative outcomes are celebrated for their contribution to the collective pursuit of knowledge.

In conclusion, the omission of negative results from clinical trial disclosures and publications undermines the integrity and reliability of scientific research, perpetuating a skewed narrative of medical progress. However, by recognizing the inherent value of negative outcomes in enriching our understanding of interventions' efficacy and safety and by embracing initiatives aimed at promoting transparency and accountability, we can pave the way for a more equitable and evidence-based approach to clinical research.

References:

1. Cleophas RC, Cleophas TJ. Is selective reporting of clinical research unethical as well as unscientific? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999 Jan;37(1):1-7. PMID: 10027477.
2. Capuano A, Coats AJ, Scavone C, Rossi F, Rosano GM. Disclosure of negative trial results. A call for action. Int J Cardiol. 2015 Nov 1;198:47-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.06.157. Epub 2015 Jul 2. PMID: 26151710.
3. Moler FW, Silverstein FS, Holubkov R, et al. Therapeutic Hypothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Children. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(20):1898-1908. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1411480
4. Snyder RJ. Lack of Transparency in Publishing Negative Clinical Trial Results. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery. 2020;37(2):385-389. doi:10.1016/j.cpm.2019.12.013
5. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev. 1997;9(1 Suppl):15-21.
6. Reed MS, Ferré M, Martin-Ortega J, et al. Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Research Policy. 2021;50(4):104147. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147
7. Unger JM, Barlow WE, Hershman DL. Measuring the Real Clinical Impact of Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology—Reply: Beyond Citation Counts. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1511. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1772
8. Texier G, Meynard JB, Michel R, Migliani R, Boutin JP. Faut-il tenter de publier une étude qui ne conclut rien? La Presse Médicale. 2007;36(3):541-550. doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2007.01.015
9. Brown T. It’s Time for AllTrials Registered and Reported. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013:ED000057. doi:10.1002/14651858.ED000057
10. Dal-Ré R. Clinical Trials Transparency: Where Are We Today? Trends in Cancer. 2018;4(1):1-3. doi:10.1016/j.trecan.2017.11.003

About The Author:

Bashar S. Shihabuddin MD, MS, FAAP, FACEP is the chief scientific officer for BJEConsultants, a healthcare consultancy company focused on advancing clinical research through collaboration and education. Dr. Shihabuddin is also a physician-scientist in pediatric emergency medicine where his work involves clinical data accuracy and patient-centered care.