Literature DB >> 19724045

Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.

Sylvain Mathieu1, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher, Douglas G Altman, Philippe Ravaud.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors. DATA EXTRACTION: For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
RESULTS: Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
CONCLUSION: Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19724045     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  211 in total

1.  Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO.

Authors:  Kay Dickersin; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Selective outcome reporting: telling and detecting true lies. The state of the science.

Authors:  Ana Macura; Iosief Abraha; Jamie Kirkham; Gian Franco Gensini; Lorenzo Moja; Alfonso Iorio
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.397

3.  Seeking transparency.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 53.440

Review 4.  The evolution in registration of clinical trials: a chronicle of the historical calls and current initiatives promoting transparency.

Authors:  Claudia Pansieri; Chiara Pandolfini; Maurizio Bonati
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and peer-reviewed publications.

Authors:  Daniel M Hartung; Deborah A Zarin; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Marian McDonagh; Robin Paynter; Mark Helfand
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  The project data sphere initiative: accelerating cancer research by sharing data.

Authors:  Angela K Green; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Robert W Corty; Ethan Basch; Mathew I Milowsky; Stacie B Dusetzina; Antonia V Bennett; William A Wood
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-04-15

7.  The use and abuse of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled depression trials.

Authors:  Kristin M Tyler; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Nicholas J Horton
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations.

Authors:  Lin Wang; Benjamin Rouse; Arielle Marks-Anglin; Rui Duan; Qiyuan Shi; Kevin Quach; Yong Chen; Christopher Cameron; Christopher H Schmid; Tianjing Li
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Social science. Promoting transparency in social science research.

Authors:  E Miguel; C Camerer; K Casey; J Cohen; K M Esterling; A Gerber; R Glennerster; D P Green; M Humphreys; G Imbens; D Laitin; T Madon; L Nelson; B A Nosek; M Petersen; R Sedlmayr; J P Simmons; U Simonsohn; M Van der Laan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Post-stroke fatigue: a scoping review.

Authors:  Ghazaleh Aali; Avril Drummond; Roshan das Nair; Farhad Shokraneh
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2020-04-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.