We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

Fair Conduct and Fair Reporting of Clinical Trials

Drummond Rennie, MD
JAMA. 1999;282(18):1766-1768. doi:10.1001/jama.282.18.1766.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Meta-analysis, done properly, is a systematic effort to search for and winnow out all the best evidence and show how well a given intervention works. It is crucially dependent on the identification of all available data from clinical trials. In 1989, Gøtzsche,1 who was performing a meta-analysis of 244 trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis, drew attention to a practice that seemed to subvert the normal process of publication as well as of meta-analysis. Excluding abstracts, letters, and brief versions, Gøtzsche found 44 multiple publications of 31 of the clinical trials, 20 trials published twice, 10 three times, and 1 trial 5 times, with the overall proportion of multiple publications being at least 18%. The fact that the data had been published elsewhere was not noted in 32 of the 44 articles. Indeed, in about half of them, the first author and number of authors were different, and in half there were important discrepancies between the various versions of the same trial. Gøtzsche1 pointed out that "some cases were so difficult to detect that in a meta-analysis they might have been mistaken for separate trials."

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

90 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles