Abstract
Clinical research should conform to high standards of ethical and scientific integrity, 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 data in order to achieve desired outcomes. To shed light on the integrity of clinical trial results, this paper systematically analyzes the distribution of p-values of primary outcomes for phase II and phase III drug trials reported to the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. First, we detect no bunching of results just above the classical 5% threshold for statistical significance. Second, a density discontinuity test reveals an upward jump at the 5% threshold for phase III results by small industry sponsors. Third, we document a larger fraction of significant results in phase III compared to phase II. Linking trials across phases, we find that early favorable results increase the likelihood of continuing into the next phase. Once we take into account this selective continuation, we can explain almost completely the excess of significant results in phase III for trials conducted by large industry sponsors. For small industry sponsors, instead, part of the excess remains unexplained.
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All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.
↵† Department of Economics, BIDSA, and IGIER, Bocconi University, Via Roberto Sarfatti 25, 20136 Milan, Italy., Phone: +39–02–5836–5572. E-mail: jerome.adda{at}unibocconi.it.
↵‡ Department of Economics and UBS Center for Economics in Society, University of Zurich, Schönberggasse 1, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland. Phone: +41–44–634–61–26. E-mail: christian.decker{at}econ.uzh.ch.
↵§ Department of Economics, BIDSA, and IGIER, Bocconi University, Via Roberto Sarfatti 25, 20136 Milan, Italy., Phone: +39–02–5836–3385. E-mail: marco.ottaviani{at}unibocconi.it.
