Alberto Falk Delgado1, Anna Falk Delgado2. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 2. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden alberto.falk-delgado@surgsci.uu.se.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent reporting in published meta-analyses compared to registered protocol are poorly understood. The aim of the study was to assess inconsistencies between registered protocols and published reports among oncology drug meta-analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed including oncology drug meta-analyses published between January 1st and November 14th 2016 with a published protocol. Two investigators extracted data on: selection criteria, outcome(s) and statistical plan in protocol and manuscript, plus self-acknowledgement of inconsistent reporting between protocol and publication. RESULTS: Protocol registration was present in 19% (23/119) of all oncology drug meta-analyses. In meta-analyses with protocol (n=23), 70% (16/23) had issues with inconsistent reporting between protocol and published report concerning; inclusion criteria, comparator group, intervention, outcome (PICO) or statistical analysis. Self-acknowledgement of changes between protocol and publication was found in 50% (8/16). CONCLUSION: In meta-analyses with protocol, discrepancies between registered protocols and publications are frequent. Copyright
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent reporting in published meta-analyses compared to registered protocol are poorly understood. The aim of the study was to assess inconsistencies between registered protocols and published reports among oncology drug meta-analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed including oncology drug meta-analyses published between January 1st and November 14th 2016 with a published protocol. Two investigators extracted data on: selection criteria, outcome(s) and statistical plan in protocol and manuscript, plus self-acknowledgement of inconsistent reporting between protocol and publication. RESULTS: Protocol registration was present in 19% (23/119) of all oncology drug meta-analyses. In meta-analyses with protocol (n=23), 70% (16/23) had issues with inconsistent reporting between protocol and published report concerning; inclusion criteria, comparator group, intervention, outcome (PICO) or statistical analysis. Self-acknowledgement of changes between protocol and publication was found in 50% (8/16). CONCLUSION: In meta-analyses with protocol, discrepancies between registered protocols and publications are frequent. Copyright