This short narrative review article defines ‘negative results’ and cites several ethical and scientific reasons why such studies should be made publicly available.
Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration.Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2007; Issue 4. Art. No.: CD000197. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000197.pub2.
2.
DennisMSandercockPAReidJ. Effectiveness of thigh-length graduated compression stockings to reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis after stroke (CLOTS trial 1): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet2009; 373:1958–65.
3.
GibsonLBrazzelliMThomasBSandercockP. A systematic review of clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for acute ischaemic stroke (1955–2008) that were completed, but not published in full. Trials2010; 11:43. http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/43
4.
SenaESvan der WorpHBBathPMWHowellsDWMacleodMR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol2010; 8:e1000344.
5.
BathPMGrayLJ. Systematic reviews as a tool for planning and interpreting trials. Int J Stroke2009; 4:23–7.
6.
MoherDHopewellSSchulzKF. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ2010; 340:c869.
7.
CollinsRMacMahonS. Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials. [Review] [74 refs]. Lancet2001; 357:373–80.
8.
IoannidisJPA. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA2005; 294:218–28.
9.
IoannidisJP. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology2008; 19:640–8.
10.
IoannidisJPAPanagiotouOA. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA2011; 305:2200–10.
