View

The Study

Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

In simple terms

This study looked at 1,542 medical research papers published in top journals over 20 years. It found that more papers with 'negative' results (where the treatment didn't work better than placebo) were published in 2020 compared to 2000. But here's the tricky part: just because two things happened around the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. The study shows links or associations - like bigger studies and industry-funded studies had different patterns of publishing negative results - but it can't prove that any of these factors actually cause more or fewer negative studies to be published.

40%

Analysis score

40/ 100

Maximum 100 for a systematic review.

Where the score came from

Reporting0
Methodology25
Publication100
Statistical46
Study type (basis of the score)
Systematic Review
Level 2a - Systematic review of cohort studies
What’s the bottom line?

Researchers looked at whether more clinical trials with negative results (where the new treatment didn't work better than placebo) are being published in top medical journals over 20 years. They found more negative trials are being published now compared to 2000, but there's no clear pattern over time.

Where does this study sit?

Reviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)

Max 100

Randomized Trials

Max 90

Reviews of Cohort Studies

Max 85

Cohort Studies

Max 72

Reviews of Case-Control Studies

Max 63

Case-Control Studies

Max 58

Cross-Sectional & Case Series

Max 50

Expert Opinion

Max 5
StrongerWeaker
Reviews of Cohort Studies
Level 2a
40

40 / 100

Quality score

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.

Cannot establish causation

Save studies & get personalized insights

Create a free account to save this study, track new evidence as it comes in, and get breakdowns of studies in the topics you care about.

Key takeaways

Summary

Based on the study abstract and findings.

  1. 1For a patient or doctor, this means top medical journals are slightly more willing to publish trials where treatments don't work, but the change is small and inconsistent.
  2. 2Industry-funded research still tends to hide negative findings.
  3. 3Negative trials increased from 27.6% (2000) to 37.4% (2020).
  4. 4Industry-funded trials publish fewer negative results.
  5. 5Certain medical specialties publish more negative trials.

Score breakdown, methodology, conflicts of interest, evidence analysis & raw study data

Publication

Journal

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Year

2025

Authors

B. Laviolle, Clara Locher, Jean-Sébastien Allain, Q. Le Cornu, P. Charpentier, Marie Lefebvre, Clémence Le Pape, Cyril Leven, C. Palpacuer, Clémence Pontoizeau, Eric Bellissant, F. Naudet

Open Access
2 citations
Analysis v5
Fit Body Science verdict — we translate health studies into clear verdicts backed by peer-reviewed research.

Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.