Literature DB >> 22503374

Quality of registration for clinical trials published in emergency medicine journals.

Christopher W Jones1, Timothy F Platts-Mills.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: In 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors established clinical trial registration as a requirement for articles submitted to member journals, with the goal of improving the transparency of clinical research. The objective of this study is to characterize the registration of clinical trials published in emergency medicine journals.
METHODS: Randomized trials involving human subjects and published between June 1, 2008, and May 31, 2011 in the 5 emergency medicine journals with the highest impact factors were included. We assessed the clarity of registered primary outcomes, timing of registration relative to patient enrollment, and consistency between registered and published outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the 123 trials included, registry entries were identified for 57 (46%). Of the 57 registered studies, 45 (79%) were registered after the initiation of subject enrollment, 9 (16%) had registered outcomes that were unclear, and 26 (46%) had discrepancies between registered and published outcomes. Only 5 studies were registered before patient enrollment with a clear primary outcome that was consistent with the published primary outcome. Annals of Emergency Medicine was the only journal in which the majority of trials were registered.
CONCLUSION: Current compliance with clinical trial registration guidelines is poor among trials published in emergency medicine journals.
Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22503374     DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  15 in total

1.  Using ClinicalTrials.gov to supplement information in ophthalmology conference abstracts about trial outcomes: a comparison study.

Authors:  Roberta W Scherer; Lynn Huynh; Ann-Margret Ervin; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kylie Thaler; Christina Kien; Barbara Nussbaumer; Megan G Van Noord; Ursula Griebler; Irma Klerings; Gerald Gartlehner
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Shoulder Arthroplasty Trials Are Infrequently Registered: A Systematic Review of Trials.

Authors:  Matthew Thomas Sims; Zachary Carter Sanchez; James Murphy Herrington; James Barrett Hensel; Nolan Michael Henning; Caleb Josiah Scheckel; Matt Vassar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results.

Authors:  Rabia Bashir; Florence T Bourgeois; Adam G Dunn
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-07-03

5.  Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ludovic Trinquart; Adam G Dunn; Florence T Bourgeois
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 8.775

6.  Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and implications for outcome integrity: a cross-sectional analysis of trials published in high-impact specialty society journals.

Authors:  Anand D Gopal; Joshua D Wallach; Jenerius A Aminawung; Gregg Gonsalves; Rafael Dal-Ré; Jennifer E Miller; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 7.  Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis.

Authors:  Christopher W Jones; Lara Handler; Karen E Crowell; Lukas G Keil; Mark A Weaver; Timothy F Platts-Mills
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-10-29

8.  The quality of registration of clinical trials: still a problem.

Authors:  Roderik F Viergever; Ghassan Karam; Andreas Reis; Davina Ghersi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christopher W Jones; Lukas G Keil; Wesley C Holland; Melissa C Caughey; Timothy F Platts-Mills
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 10.  Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals.

Authors:  Benjamin Howard; Jared T Scott; Mark Blubaugh; Brie Roepke; Caleb Scheckel; Matt Vassar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.