title: Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study aimed to investigate what percentage of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme-funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal HTA and to explore reasons for non-publication.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective cohort study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Failure to publish findings from research is a significant area of research waste. It has previously been suggested that potentially over 50% of studies funded are never published.
  
  
  METHODS
  All NIHR HTA projects with a planned submission date for their final report for publication in the journal series on or before 9 December 2011 were included.
  
  
  METHODS
  The projects were classified according to the type of research, whether they had been published or not; if not yet published, whether they would be published in the future or not. The reasons for non-publication were investigated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  628 projects were included: 582 (92.7%) had published a monograph; 19 (3%) were expected to publish a monograph; 13 (2.1%) were discontinued studies and would not publish; 12 (1.9%) submitted a report which did not lead to a publication as a monograph; and two (0.3%) did not submit a report. Overall, 95.7% of HTA studies either have published or will publish a monograph: 94% for those commissioned in 2002 or before and 98% for those commissioned after 2002. Of the 27 projects for which there will be no report, the majority (21) were commissioned in 2002 or before. Reasons why projects failed to complete included failure to recruit; issues concerning the organisation where the research was taking place; drug licensing issues; staffing issues; and access to data.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The percentage of HTA projects for which a monograph is published is high. The advantages of funding organisations requiring publication in their own journal include avoidance of publication bias and research waste.
authors: National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Turner
authors: D
authors: D
authors: Wright
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Maeso
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Cook
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Milne
keywords: publication; research funding; research waste
references: Health Technol Assess. 2007 Dec;11(53):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-180
references: 18031652
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):MR000006
references: 19160345
references: JAMA. 2003 Jul 23;290(4):495-501
references: 12876092
references: BMJ. 2012 Jan 03;344:d7292
references: 22214755
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jan;26(1):110-6
references: 20059788
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000005
references: 17443628
references: Lancet. 2009 Jul 4;374(9683):86-9
references: 19525005
references: BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):640-5
references: 9310565
references: Health Technol Assess. 2008 Oct;12(32):iii, ix-x, 1-46
references: 18831948
references: Health Technol Assess. 2010 Feb;14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193
references: 20181324