Differences between information in registries and articles did not influence publication acceptance

Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources.

METHODS

This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%).

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

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

Outcome reporting bias is one of the fundamental forms of publication bias. It implies publishing only outcomes that have positive results. The aim of this observational study was to explore primary outcome discrepancies between registry of clinical trials and their corresponding publications, since these can indicate outcome reporting bias in child mental health. Data were extracted from completed interventional clinical trials from ClinicalTrial.gov registry and its Archive site. Trials were registered under "Behaviours and Mental Disorders" category, and conducted on underage participants (0-17 years). Their primary outcomes were compared to those published in publication which had a corresponding NCT number stated in the text. Sixteen percent of trials did not have the minimum information on primary outcome stated in the registry-neither the measure used nor the measurement time points; 38.9% of trials had the minimum information stated to describe primary outcome, while only 3.3% of trials had all the necessary elements stated in the registry. Most of the publication in our sample had positive results (66.4%). Half of the trials registered before completion had non-matching primary outcomes in the registry and publication; 85.4% of trials with non-matching outcomes indicated possible outcome reporting bias for some of the primary outcome. Middle-sized trials and industry-funded trials were related with higher quality of primary outcome registration. Industry funding was related with positive findings in publication. Non-industry funding proved to be the only significant predictor of discrepancy between registered and published primary outcomes, and possible outcome reporting bias. Journal impact factor was not related with any of the outcome measures. The main limitation of the study is that it primarily offers an insight into discrepancy of registered and published outcomes. The methodology does not imply an access to results of unpublished outcomes - therefore, it was not possible to determine the presence of the bias with sufficient certainty in large number of trials. Further research should be done with improved methodology and additional data.

Registration and primary outcome reporting in behavioral health trials

BACKGROUND

Registration of research studies is designed to lock investigators into a data collection and analysis plan before a study starts and thereby limit their ability to engage in flexible data analysis and selective outcome reporting. Studies of registered clinical trials show that one- to two-thirds are registered after the study has started and that non-adherence to important design and analytic features, such as reporting data pertaining to all primary outcomes, remains high. Less is known about the effects of registration on research transparency and integrity outside of clinical trials. To address this gap in knowledge, the current study examined the effects of registration on the reporting of research findings in a sample of behavioral health trials published in BMC Public Health.

METHODS

Registered trials published in the BMC Public Health section "Health Behavior, Health Promotion and Society" between 2011 and 2015 were included in the study. For each trial, we reviewed associated online submissions from 13 different registration sites. For those determined to have been prospectively registered, we used the trial registry, MEDLINE (Pubmed), PsychINFO, Web of Science and e-mails to investigators to identify subsequent publications from the study that reported results pertaining to primary outcomes. The two investigators then independently reviewed the outcome publication(s) and compared the primary outcomes reported in these to the registered primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The final analytic sample comprised 136 locatable, registered trials with an identifiable start date. Sixty-eight of the 136 were prospectively registered. Among these prospectively registered trials, only 16 published manuscripts reported outcomes and methods that were concordant with their registrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Retrospective submission of protocols for publication and retrospective registration remain common in public health research, and adherence to prespecified outcomes is rare. In its current form, registration of behavioral and health promotion trials is likely to have minimal effect on preventing selective outcome reporting in publications, and the pervasiveness of vague and incomplete registry entries means that registries will have limited utility in terms of facilitating replication studies.

A web-based tool for automatically linking clinical trials to their publications

OBJECTIVE

Evidence synthesis teams, physicians, policy makers, and patients and their families all have an interest in following the outcomes of clinical trials and would benefit from being able to evaluate both the results posted in trial registries and in the publications that arise from them. Manual searching for publications arising from a given trial is a laborious and uncertain process. We sought to create a statistical model to automatically identify PubMed articles likely to report clinical outcome results from each registered trial in ClinicalTrials.gov.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A machine learning-based model was trained on pairs (publications known to be linked to specific registered trials). Multiple features were constructed based on the degree of matching between the PubMed article metadata and specific fields of the trial registry, as well as matching with the set of publications already known to be linked to that trial.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the model using known linked articles as gold standard showed that they tend to be top ranked (median best rank = 1.0), and 91% of them are ranked in the top 10.

DISCUSSION

Based on this model, we have created a free, public web-based tool that, given any registered trial in ClinicalTrials.gov, presents a ranked list of the PubMed articles in order of estimated probability that they report clinical outcome data from that trial. The tool should greatly facilitate studies of trial outcome results and their relation to the original trial designs.

Compliance of Clinical Trial Protocols for Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Consistency between Clinical Trial Registrations and Published Reports

Background: A new type of foods with a health claims notification system, the Foods with Function Claims (FFC), was introduced in Japan in April 2015. This cross-sectional study sought to clarify compliance of clinical trial protocols reported as the scientific basis of efficacy in the FFC system. Methods: All articles based on clinical trials published on the Consumer Affairs Agency website from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021 were reviewed. Items assessed included first author characteristics (for-profit or academia), journal name, year published, journal impact factor in 2020, article language, name of clinical trial registration (CTR), and seven compliance items (Title: T, Participant: P, Intervention: I, Comparison: C, Outcome: O, Study design: S, and Institutional Review Board, IRB). Among studies that conducted CTR, consistency with these seven compliance items was evaluated. Results: Out of 136 studies that met all inclusion criteria, 103 (76%) performed CTR, and CTR was either not performed or not specified for 33 (24%). Compliance between the protocol and the text was high (≥96%) for items P and S, but considerably lower for items T, I, C, O, and IRB (52%, 15%, 13%, 69%, and 27%, respectively). Furthermore, 43% of protocols did not include functional ingredients or food names in items T or I. The total score was 3.7 ± 1.1 pts (out of 7). Conclusions: Some CTs had no protocol registration, and even registered protocols were suboptimal in transparency. In addition to selective reporting, a new problem identified was that the content of the intervention (test food) was intentionally concealed.

A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing

OBJECTIVE

We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text.

RESULTS

4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term "pragmatic" was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.

High impact nutrition and dietetics journals' use of publication procedures to increase research transparency

BACKGROUND

The rigor and integrity of the published research in nutrition studies has come into serious question in recent years. Concerns focus on the use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting and the failure of peer review journals to identify and correct these practices. In response, it has been proposed that journals employ editorial procedures designed to improve the transparency of published research.

OBJECTIVE

The present study examines the adoption of editorial procedures designed to improve the reporting of empirical studies in the field of nutrition and dietetics research.

DESIGN

The instructions for authors of 43 journals included in Quartiles 1 and 2 of the Clarivate Analytics' 2018 Journal Citation Report category Nutrition and Dietetics were reviewed. For journals that published original research, conflict of interest disclosure, recommendation of reporting guidelines, registration of clinical trials, registration of other types of studies, encouraging data sharing, and use of the Registered Reports were assessed. For journals that only published reviews, all of the procedures except clinical trial registration were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three journals published original research and 10 published only reviews. Conflict of interest disclosure was required by all 33 original research journals. Use of guidelines, trial registration and encouragement of data sharing were mentioned by 30, 27 and 25 journals, respectively. Registration of other studies was required by eight and none offered Registered Reports as a publication option at the time of the review. All 10 review journals required conflict of interest disclosure, four recommended data sharing and three the use of guidelines. None mentioned the other two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

While nutrition journals have adopted a number of procedures designed to improve the reporting of research findings, their limited effects likely result from the mechanisms through which they influence analytic flexibility and selective reporting and the extent to which they are properly implemented and enforced by journals.

Low dissemination rates, non-transparency of trial premature cessation and late registration in child mental health: observational study of registered interventional trials

The aim of this observational study was to explore trial premature cessation, non-publication and trial registration time in child mental health. Data were extracted for "closed" trials in Clinicaltrials.gov registry and European Union Clinical Trial Register (EUCTR) and corresponding publications of completed trials indexed in three data bases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar). We restricted the extraction to the 'Behaviours and Mental Disorders' category and participants' age of 0-17 years. Outcome measures were trial completion, results reporting within a year after the trial completion, publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal within an average time to publish (729 days), and registration time. The number of EUCTR trials was relatively small (n = 35) and with many inconsistencies. Out of 827 "closed" trials extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov, 69% were completed, 24.2% of prematurely ceased trials did not report reasons for early termination, 12.2% of the completed trials had results reported within a year, and 29.3% had an article published within 24 months after completion. Middle-sized (100-499 participants) and behavioural trials had higher chances of being successfully completed. Middle-sized and industry-funded trials were associated with results reporting. Chances for publishing an article were lower for industry-funded trials. Industry funding and drug interventions were related to timely registration. Large sample and non-industry funding were related to retrospective registration, which was recorded more often in recent years than before (we observed trials registered from 2002 until 2017). This study found low dissemination rates in the field of child mental health, with worrying under-reporting of premature termination causes. These findings indicate that more children are being subjected to unnecessary risk that comes with trial participation.

Use of publication procedures to improve research integrity by addiction journals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The credibility crisis evident in many academic disciplines has led peer-reviewed journals to implement procedures to reduce use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting of results. This exploratory study examined the adoption of six of these procedures by addiction journals.

METHODS

Thirty-eight high-impact addiction journals were identified using the 2018 Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Report for 2017 ranks. The online instructions for authors were reviewed for references to six publication procedures: conflict of interest disclosure, reporting guidelines, clinical trial registration, registration of other study designs, data-sharing and registered reports. The webpages of the Center for Open Science and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) were also reviewed for data pertaining to registered reports and reporting guidelines, respectively.

RESULTS

The range of procedures adopted by the addiction journals was 0-5, with a mean of 2.66. Conflict-of-interest disclosure was required by all but one journal. Encouraging data-sharing was the next most commonly required procedure. Fewer than half the journals recommended specific reporting guidelines or required registration of clinical trials, and only four required procedures to pre-specify hypotheses and analytical methods.

CONCLUSIONS

While many addiction journals have adopted publication procedures to improve research integrity, these can be limited by their voluntary nature and monitoring difficulties. More stringent requirements that lock researchers into specific hypotheses and analyses have not been widely adopted.

Prevalence of trial registration varies by study characteristics and risk of bias

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of trial registration in health research, whether trial registration status and timing vary depending on trial characteristics, and the relationship between trial registration status and risk of bias.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically reviewed all clinical trials published from January to June 2017 in 28 high- and low-impact factor general and specialty medicine journals.

RESULTS

We identified 370 trials and assessed risk of bias in 183 trials. Trial registration rates were high; 95% of trials were registered prospectively or retrospectively before enrollment completion. Larger sample size, multiple recruitment countries, and primary industry funding were all predictors of earlier trial registration. Prospectively registered trials had a significantly lower risk of bias compared to unregistered trials across all domains. Prospectively registered trials had a similar risk of bias compared to retrospectively registered trials across four out of six domains, and a lower risk of bias across the remaining two domains.

CONCLUSION

Trial registration is an imperfect proxy for risk of bias. Systematic reviewers should assess risk of bias on a case-by-case basis and conduct sensitivity analyses excluding high risk of bias studies. In the longer term, mechanisms should be implemented to facilitate prospective registration of all trials.

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

BACKGROUND

Registration of clinical trials is critical for promoting transparency and integrity in medical research; however, trials must be registered in a prospective fashion to deter unaccounted protocol modifications or selection of alternate outcomes that may enhance favorability of reported findings. We assessed adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and identified the frequency of registrations occurring after potential observation of primary outcome data among trials published in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. Additionally, we examined whether trials that are unregistered or registered after potential observation of primary outcome data were more likely to report favorable findings.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 50 most recently published clinical trials that reported primary results in each of the ten highest-impact US medical specialty society journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the proportions of trials that were: registered; registered retrospectively; registered retrospectively potentially after initial ascertainment of primary outcomes; and reporting favorable findings, overall and stratified by journal and trial characteristics. Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences in registration by journal and trial characteristics.

RESULTS

We reviewed 6869 original research reports published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 to identify a total of 486 trials across 472 publications. Of these 486 trials, 47 (10%) were unregistered. Among 439 registered trials, 340 (77%) were registered prospectively and 99 (23%) retrospectively. Sixty-seven (68%) of these 99 retrospectively registered trials, or 15% of all 439 registered trials, were registered after potential observation of primary outcome data ascertained among participants enrolled at inception. Industry-funded trials, those with enrollment sites in the US, as well as those assessing FDA-regulated interventions each had lower rates of retrospective registration. Unregistered trials were more likely to report favorable findings than were registered trials (89% vs. 64%; relative risk (RR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-1.58; p = 0.004), irrespective of registration timing.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to the ICMJE's prospective registration policy remains sub-standard, even in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. These journals frequently published unregistered trials and trials registered after potential observation of primary outcome data.

Conditional equivalence testing: An alternative remedy for publication bias

We introduce a publication policy that incorporates "conditional equivalence testing" (CET), a two-stage testing scheme in which standard NHST is followed conditionally by testing for equivalence. The idea of CET is carefully considered as it has the potential to address recent concerns about reproducibility and the limited publication of null results. In this paper we detail the implementation of CET, investigate similarities with a Bayesian testing scheme, and outline the basis for how a scientific journal could proceed to reduce publication bias while remaining relevant.

Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Recognizing the value of promoting public access to clinical trial protocols, Trials pioneered the way for their publication over a decade ago. However, despite major advances in the public accessibility of information about trial methods and results, protocol sharing remains relatively rare.

MAIN BODY

Protocol sharing facilitates the critical appraisal of clinical trials and helps to identify and deter the selective reporting of outcomes and analyses. Challenges to the routine availability of high quality trial protocols include the gaps in incentives and adherence mechanisms, limited venues for sharing the original and final protocol versions, and the need for mechanisms to ensure transparent and complete protocol content.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose recommendations for addressing key challenges to protocol sharing in order to promote routine public access to protocols for the benefit of patients and other users of evidence from clinical trials.

The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them)

In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers' tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.

A study comparing trial registry entries of randomized controlled trials with publications of their results in a high impact factor journal: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Purpose:

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors mandates trial registration as a precondition for publication. Growing evidence indicates that information in registry may not correlate with eventual publication. The present study was carried out with the objective of comparing content of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in one year in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), with the information contained in trial registries.

Methods:

All RCTs published in JAMA in 2013 were included. 11 data set items were matched for content between registry entry and published RCT: Title, Primary and Secondary Objectives, Study type, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria, Treatment Age Group, Follow up, Sample Size, Primary and Secondary Outcomes. A fully correct match was scored 2, partially correct 1 and incorrect 0. Thus, maximum possible score for each paper was number of items multiplied by 2, i.e., 22.

Results:

The median [range] total score achieved by RCTs was 15. No RCT achieved a perfect score of 22. The largest proportion of RCTs reported secondary objectives, study type, treatment age group, follow up, sample size and primary outcomes fully correctly. However, only 13.5 %, 12 % and 13.5 % of RCTs were a perfect match with registry entries in terms of title, primary objective and secondary outcomes respectively. Almost three quarters did not match perfectly in selection criteria.

Conclusion:

There exist discrepancies between trial registration and published paper even in a high impact factor journal. Both authors and editors should adhere to CONSORT guidelines to ensure transparency of published research.

Outcome reporting bias in randomized-controlled trials investigating antipsychotic drugs

Recent literature hints that outcomes of clinical trials in medicine are selectively reported. If applicable to psychotic disorders, such bias would jeopardize the reliability of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotics and thus their extrapolation to clinical practice. We therefore comprehensively examined outcome reporting bias in RCTs of antipsychotic drugs by a systematic review of prespecified outcomes on ClinicalTrials.gov records of RCTs investigating antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. These outcomes were compared with outcomes published in scientific journals. Our primary outcome measure was concordance between prespecified and published outcomes; secondary outcome measures included outcome modifications on ClinicalTrials.gov after trial inception and the effects of funding source and directionality of results on record adherence. Of the 48 RCTs, 85% did not fully adhere to the prespecified outcomes. Discrepancies between prespecified and published outcomes were found in 23% of RCTs for primary outcomes, whereas 81% of RCTs had at least one secondary outcome non-reported, newly introduced, or changed to a primary outcome in the respective publication. In total, 14% of primary and 44% of secondary prespecified outcomes were modified after trial initiation. Neither funding source (P=0.60) nor directionality of the RCT results (P=0.10) impacted ClinicalTrials.gov record adherence. Finally, the number of published safety endpoints (N=335) exceeded the number of prespecified safety outcomes by 5.5 fold. We conclude that RCTs investigating antipsychotic drugs suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias and offer suggestions to both monitor and limit such bias in the future.

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

BACKGROUND

Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined.

RESULTS

180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results.

CONCLUSION

Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.

Why prudence is needed when interpreting articles reporting clinical trial results in mental health

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial results' reliability is impacted by reporting bias. This is primarily manifested as publication bias and outcome reporting bias.

MENTAL HEALTH TRIALS' SPECIFIC FEATURES

Mental health trials are prone to two methodological deficiencies: (1) using small numbers of participants that facilitates false positive findings and exaggerated size effects, and (2) the obligatory use of psychometric scales that require subjective assessments. These two deficiencies contribute to the publication of unreliable results. Considerable reporting bias has been found in safety and efficacy findings in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy trials. Reporting bias can be carried forward to meta-analyses, a key source for clinical practice guidelines. The final result is the frequent overestimation of treatment effects that could impact patients and clinician-informed decisions.

MECHANISMS TO PREVENT OUTCOME REPORTING BIAS

Prospective registration of trials and publication of results are the two major methods to reduce reporting bias. Prospective trial registration will allow checking whether they are published (so it will help to prevent publication bias) and, if published, whether those outcomes and analyses that were deemed as appropriate before trial commencement are actually published (hence helping to find out selective reporting of outcomes). Unfortunately, the rate of registered trials in mental health interventions is low and, frequently, of poor quality.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should be prudent when interpreting the results of published trials and some meta-analyses - such as those conducted by scientists working for the sponsor company or those that only include published trials. Prescribers, however, should be confident when prescribing drugs following the summary of product characteristics, since regulatory agencies have access to all clinical trial results.

Update on Trial Registration 11 Years after the ICMJE Policy Was Established

In the decade following the journal editors’ trial registration policy, a global trial reporting system (TRS) has arisen to supplement journal publication by increasing the transparency and accountability of the clinical research enterprise (CRE), which ultimately advances evidence-based medicine. Trial registration a foundation component of the TRS. In this article, we assess impact of the trial registration on the CRE with respect to two key goals: (1) establishing a publicly accessible and structured public record of all trials and (2) ensuring access to date-stamped protocol details that change during a study. After characterizing international trial registry landscape, we summarize the published evidence of the impact of the registration laws and policies on the CRE to date. We present three analyses using ClinicalTrials.gov registration data to illustrate approaches for assessing and monitoring the TRS: (1) timing of registration (i.e., prior to trial initiation [prospective] or after trial initiation [retrospective or “late”]; (2) degree of specificity and consistency of registered primary outcome measures compared to descriptions in study protocols and published articles; and (3) a survey of the published literature to characterize how ClinicalTrials.gov data has been used in research on the CRE. These findings suggest that, while the TRS is largely moving towards goals, key stakeholders need to do more in the next decade.

A systematic review of trial registration and selective outcome reporting in psychotherapy randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Selective outcome reporting poses serious implications on our evidence base for best practice. The extent to which selective outcome reporting and trial registration occurs in the wider psychotherapy literature needs to be investigated.

METHOD

Randomized controlled psychotherapy trials published between 2010 and 2014 were selected from the five highest impact factor journals in clinical psychology that publish clinical trials. Data on primary and secondary outcomes, funding, and participant numbers were extracted from the article and registry and compared.

RESULTS

From 112 trials, 67 (59.8%) were registered, 27 (24.1%) were prospectively registered, and only 13 (11.6%) were correctly registered and reported. Seven of these 13 trials showed evidence of selective outcome reporting, of which four had discrepancies favoring significant outcomes. One of the remaining six trials changed their primary outcomes during participant enrollment. Overall, only five (4.5%) trials were free from selective outcome reporting. Three of these five trials had more than a 10% change between planned and achieved sample size. Funding was not associated with correct registration or reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of psychotherapy randomized controlled trials correctly registered and transparently reported is poor. Psychologists should consider the impact these results have on public confidence in reported outcomes.

Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals and patients could be negatively influenced in their judgments by articles and meta-analyses presenting selective outcome reporting. Clinical trials should be transparent from inception to the publication of results. To this end, trial prospective registration is an ethical and scientific requirement that have shown to be effective in preventing selective reporting of outcomes. However, even journals with a clear pre-registration policy publish trial results that were retrospectively registered.

SITUATION

Analyses of registration of randomized clinical trials recently published in top specialty journals and of meta-analyses with suspicion of including trials with outcome reporting bias have shown that retrospective registration is in the range from 56 to 76 %. This translates into publication of primary endpoints that differ from those included in the registry: some 30 % of trials showed discrepancies between the primary endpoint in the trial registry and the article. Furthermore, it has been shown that 8 % of all clinical trials published by 6 high-impact ICMJE-member journals was retrospectively registered after primary endpoint ascertainment could have had taken place, raising concerns that endpoints may not have been pre-specified, or were changed. With regards to meta-analyses, 34 % of Cochrane systematic reviews included one or more trials with a high suspicion of selective reporting bias for the primary outcome.

PROPOSAL

Retrospective registration of trials may foster selective outcome reporting unless journal editors implement specific quality control processes aiming to prevent or minimize this type of bias. Prospective registration of trials-and protocol public disclosure if proven effective in future studies-prevents outcome reporting bias, a must to ensure clinicians and patients have access to reliable clinical trial results. Journal editors should enforce, rather than encourage, appropriate measures to ensure publication of trials free of outcome reporting bias.

Registered Randomized Trials Comparing Generic and Brand-Name Drugs: A Survey

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the research agenda of registered randomized trials comparing generic and brand-name drugs in terms of who sponsors them, whether they are published promptly, and whether they find favorable results.

METHODS

We included randomized trials comparing the safety or efficacy of brand-name vs generic medications that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or other registries from January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2015. To identify published articles or results generated from such trials, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Google, and registry databases. Data were compared across sponsorship categories ("inbred" if the compared drugs were owned by the same company or its partners/subsidiaries, "competitive" if the compared drugs were owned by competing companies, and "apparently nonprofit"), and time to publication was evaluated with Cox analysis.

RESULTS

We found 207 registered protocols reporting on 186 completed trials. Among those trials, 37 had published their results and another 56 had posted results in registries, for a total of 93 trials with available results. Four years after trial completion, results were available for 64 of 138 trials (46.4%), with substantial differences by sponsor: 70.8% (34 of 48), 28.1% (18 of 64), and 46.2% (12 of 26) of the inbred, competitive, and nonprofit trials, respectively. In multivariate modeling, inbred trials had a 1.73-fold risk of having results available compared with competitive trials (P=.04). Almost all trials reported favorable results, with the exception of 4 (4.3% of the 93 trials with results).

CONCLUSION

Despite the importance of generic drugs, relatively few registered randomized trials have compared the health effects of generic vs brand-name medicines, and there is an associated unsatisfactory publication rate and almost ubiquitous favorable results. The overall literature on the topic is at high risk of bias, possibly in favor of generic drugs. Higher nonprofit funding and stronger pressure to register trials and publish results are needed.

Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: A review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency

Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing decision-making, yet conflicts of interest remain under-reported, inconsistently described, and difficult to access. Initiatives aimed at improving the disclosure of researcher conflicts of interest are still in their infancy but represent a vital reform that must be addressed before potential biases associated with conflicts of interest can be mitigated, and trust in the impartiality of clinical evidence restored. In this review, we examine the prevalence of conflicts of interest, evidence of the effects that disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest have had on the reporting of clinical evidence, and the emerging approaches for improving the completeness and consistency of disclosures. Through this review of emerging technologies, we recognize a growing interest in publicly-accessible registries for researcher conflicts of interest, and propose five desiderata aimed at maximizing the value of such registries: mandates for ensuring that researchers keep their records up to date; transparent records that are made available to the public; interoperability to allow researchers, bibliographic databases, and institutions to interact with the registry; a consistent taxonomy for describing different classes of conflicts of interest, and the ability to automatically generate conflicts of interest statements for use in published articles.