BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov requires reporting of result summaries for many drug and device trials. PURPOSE: To evaluate the consistency of reporting of trials that are registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and published in the literature. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matched publications identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and a manual search of 2 electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: 10% random sample of phase 3 or 4 trials with results in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, completed before 1 January 2009, with 2 or more groups. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data about trial design and results from the results database and matching publications. A subsample was independently verified. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 110 trials with results, most were industry-sponsored, parallel-design drug studies. The most common inconsistency was the number of secondary outcome measures reported (80%). Sixteen trials (15%) reported the primary outcome description inconsistently, and 22 (20%) reported the primary outcome value inconsistently. Thirty-eight trials inconsistently reported the number of individuals with a serious adverse event (SAE); of these, 33 (87%) reported more SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the 84 trials that reported SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov, 11 publications did not mention SAEs, 5 reported them as zero or not occurring, and 21 reported a different number of SAEs. Among 29 trials that reported deaths in ClinicalTrials.gov, 28% differed from the matched publication. LIMITATION: Small sample that included earliest results posted to the database. CONCLUSION: Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matching publications are common. Which source contains the more accurate account of results is unclear, although ClinicalTrials.gov may provide a more comprehensive description of adverse events than the publication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov requires reporting of result summaries for many drug and device trials. PURPOSE: To evaluate the consistency of reporting of trials that are registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and published in the literature. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matched publications identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and a manual search of 2 electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: 10% random sample of phase 3 or 4 trials with results in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, completed before 1 January 2009, with 2 or more groups. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data about trial design and results from the results database and matching publications. A subsample was independently verified. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 110 trials with results, most were industry-sponsored, parallel-design drug studies. The most common inconsistency was the number of secondary outcome measures reported (80%). Sixteen trials (15%) reported the primary outcome description inconsistently, and 22 (20%) reported the primary outcome value inconsistently. Thirty-eight trials inconsistently reported the number of individuals with a serious adverse event (SAE); of these, 33 (87%) reported more SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the 84 trials that reported SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov, 11 publications did not mention SAEs, 5 reported them as zero or not occurring, and 21 reported a different number of SAEs. Among 29 trials that reported deaths in ClinicalTrials.gov, 28% differed from the matched publication. LIMITATION: Small sample that included earliest results posted to the database. CONCLUSION: Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matching publications are common. Which source contains the more accurate account of results is unclear, although ClinicalTrials.gov may provide a more comprehensive description of adverse events than the publication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Authors: F Song; S Parekh; L Hooper; Y K Loke; J Ryder; A J Sutton; C Hing; C S Kwok; C Pang; I Harvey Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Rongwei Fu; Shelley Selph; Marian McDonagh; Kimberly Peterson; Arpita Tiwari; Roger Chou; Mark Helfand Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav; Sminil Mahajan; James C Yao; Brian P Hobbs; Donald A Berry; Rebecca D Pentz; Alda Tam; Waun K Hong; Lee M Ellis; James Abbruzzese; Michael J Overman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Marleine Azar; Kira E Riehm; Nazanin Saadat; Tatiana Sanchez; Matthew Chiovitti; Lin Qi; Danielle B Rice; Brooke Levis; Claire Fedoruk; Alexander W Levis; Lorie A Kloda; Jonathan Kimmelman; Andrea Benedetti; Brett D Thombs Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Katie Witkiewitz; John W Finney; Alex H S Harris; Daniel R Kivlahan; Henry R Kranzler Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Richeek Pradhan; David C Hoaglin; Matthew Cornell; Weisong Liu; Victoria Wang; Hong Yu Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-09-23 Impact factor: 6.437