Literature DB >> 23962590

Discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome specifications in analgesic trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations.

Shannon M Smith1, Anthony T Wang, Anthony Pereira, Daniel R Chang, Andrew McKeown, Kaitlin Greene, Michael C Rowbotham, Laurie B Burke, Paul Coplan, Ian Gilron, Sharon H Hertz, Nathaniel P Katz, Allison H Lin, Michael P McDermott, Elektra J Papadopoulos, Bob A Rappaport, Michael Sweeney, Dennis C Turk, Robert H Dworkin.   

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health released the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov in 2000 to increase public reporting and clinical trial transparency. This systematic review examined whether registered primary outcome specifications (POS; ie, definitions, timing, and analytic plans) in analgesic treatment trials correspond with published POS. Trials with accompanying publications (n = 87) were selected from the Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials (RReACT) database of all postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of December 1, 2011. POS never matched precisely; discrepancies occurred in 79% of the registry-publication pairs (21% failed to register or publish primary outcomes [PO]). These percentages did not differ significantly between industry and non-industry-sponsored trials. Thirty percent of the trials contained unambiguous POS discrepancies (eg, omitting a registered PO from the publication, "demoting" a registered PO to a published secondary outcome), with a statistically significantly higher percentage of non-industry-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials containing unambiguous POS discrepancies. POS discrepancies due to ambiguous reporting included vaguely worded PO registration; or failing to report the timing of PO assessment, statistical analysis used for the PO, or method to address missing PO data. At best, POS discrepancies may be attributable to insufficient registry requirements, carelessness (eg, failing to report PO assessment timing), or difficulty uploading registry information. At worst, discrepancies could indicate investigator impropriety (eg, registering imprecise PO ["pain"], then publishing whichever pain assessment produced statistically significant results). Improvements in PO registration, as well as journal policies requiring consistency between registered and published PO descriptions, are needed.
Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analgesic medications; Clinical trials; Primary outcomes; Registry; Systematic review

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23962590     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.08.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  11 in total

Review 1.  Design and Reporting Characteristics of Clinical Trials of Select Chronic and Recurrent Pediatric Pain Conditions: An Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks Systematic Review.

Authors:  Marina R Connolly; Jenna Y Chaudari; Ximeng Yang; Nam Ward; Rachel A Kitt; Rachel S Herrmann; Elliot J Krane; Alyssa A LeBel; Shannon M Smith; Gary A Walco; Steven J Weisman; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Jennifer S Gewandter
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 5.820

2.  Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.

Authors:  Nikolina Vrljičak Davidović; Luka Komić; Ivana Mešin; Mihaela Kotarac; Donald Okmažić; Tomislav Franić
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 4.785

3.  Pharmacologic therapies for neuropathic pain: an assessment of reporting biases in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Stefani M Schwartz; Awinita Barpujari; Nanna Brix Finnerup; Srinivasa N Raja
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 7.926

4.  A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

Authors:  Guowei Li; Luciana P F Abbade; Ikunna Nwosu; Yanling Jin; Alvin Leenus; Muhammad Maaz; Mei Wang; Meha Bhatt; Laura Zielinski; Nitika Sanger; Bianca Bantoto; Candice Luo; Ieta Shams; Hamnah Shahid; Yaping Chang; Guangwen Sun; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Zainab Samaan; Mitchell A H Levine; Jonathan D Adachi; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

Authors:  Christopher W Jones; Amanda Adams; Mark A Weaver; Sara Schroter; Benjamin S Misemer; David Schriger; Timothy F Platts-Mills
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Results availability for analgesic device, complex regional pain syndrome, and post-stroke pain trials: comparing the RReADS, RReACT, and RReMiT databases.

Authors:  Faustine L Dufka; Troels Munch; Robert H Dworkin; Michael C Rowbotham
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 7.926

7.  How transparent are migraine clinical trials? Repository of Registered Migraine Trials (RReMiT).

Authors:  Faustine L Dufka; Robert H Dworkin; Michael C Rowbotham
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 8.  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

9.  Publication proportions for registered breast cancer trials: before and following the introduction of the ClinicalTrials.gov results database.

Authors:  Innocent Gerald Asiimwe; Dickson Rumona
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2016-07-18

10.  Transparency in ovarian cancer clinical trial results: ClinicalTrials.gov versus PubMed, Embase and Google scholar.

Authors:  Anna Roberto; Silvia Radrezza; Paola Mosconi
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 4.234

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.