Compliance with prospective trial registration guidance remained low in high-impact journals and has implications for primary end point reporting

Assessment of consistency between peer-reviewed publications and clinical trial registrations in nursing journals

BACKGROUND

The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.

AIMS

The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.

RESULTS

A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.

The scientific chaos phase of the great pandemic: A longitudinal analysis and systematic review of the first surge of clinical research concerning COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Early stages of catastrophes like COVID-19 are often led by chaos and panic. To characterize the initial chaos phase of clinical research in such situations, we analyzed the first surge of more than 1000 clinical trials about the new disease at baseline and after two years follow-up. Our 3 main objectives were: (1) Assessment of spatial and temporal evolution of clinical research of COVID-19 across the globe, (2) Assessment of transparency and quality-trial registration, (3) Assessment of research waste and redundancies.

METHODS

By entering the keyword "COVID-19" we screened the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO and downloaded the search output when our goal of 1000 trials was reached on the 1st of April 2020. Additionally, we verified the integrity of the downloaded data from the meta registry by comparing the data with each individual registration record on their source register. Also, we conducted a follow-up after two years to track their progress.

RESULTS

(1) The spatial evolution followed the geographical spread of the disease as expected, however, the temporal development suggested that panic was the main driver for clinical research activities. (2) Trial registrations and registers showed a huge lack of transparency by allowing retrospective registrations and not keeping their registration records up to date. Quality of trial registration seems to have improved over the last decade, yet crucial information still was missing. (3) Research waste and redundancies were present as suggested by discontinuation of trials, preventable flaws in study design, and similar but uncoordinated research topics operationally fragmented in isolated silo-structures.

CONCLUSION

The scientific response mechanism across the globe was intact during the chaos phase. However, supervision, leadership, and accountability are urgently needed to prevent research waste, to ensure effective structure, quality, and validity to ultimately break the "panic-then-forget" cycle in future catastrophes.

Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration

Flexibility in the design, analysis and interpretation of scientific studies creates a multiplicity of possible research outcomes. Scientists are granted considerable latitude to selectively use and report the hypotheses, variables and analyses that create the most positive, coherent and attractive story while suppressing those that are negative or inconvenient. This creates a risk of bias that can lead to scientists fooling themselves and fooling others. Preregistration involves declaring a research plan (for example, hypotheses, design and statistical analyses) in a public registry before the research outcomes are known. Preregistration (1) reduces the risk of bias by encouraging outcome-independent decision-making and (2) increases transparency, enabling others to assess the risk of bias and calibrate their confidence in research outcomes. In this Perspective, we briefly review the historical evolution of preregistration in medicine, psychology and other domains, clarify its pragmatic functions, discuss relevant meta-research, and provide recommendations for scientists and journal editors.

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.

Number and quality of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics published in the top general medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing number of randomized controlled trials published in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine to reduce biases of treatment effect and to provide insights on the cause-effect of the relationship between treatment and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in top weekly general medical journals and monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals, to assess their quality in reporting and identify factors associated with publication in different journals.

STUDY DESIGN

The 4 weekly medical journals with the highest 2019 impact factor (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal), the top 4 monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals with obstetrics-related research (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), and the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Maternal-Fetal Medicine were searched for obstetrical randomized controlled trials in the years 2018 to 2020. The primary outcome was the number of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals vs the weekly medical journals and the percentage of trials published, overall and per journal. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of positive vs negative trials overall and per journal and the assessment of the study characteristics of published trials, including quality assessment criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 4024 original research articles published in the 9 journals during the 3-year study period, 1221 (30.3%) were randomized controlled trials, with 137 (11.2%) randomized controlled trials being in obstetrics (46 in 2018, 47 in 2019, and 44 studies in 2020). Furthermore, 33 (24.1%) were published in weekly medical journals, and 104 (75.9%) were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. The percentage of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published ranged from 1.5% to 9.6% per journal. Overall, 34.3% of obstetrical trials were statistically significant or "positive" for the primary outcome. Notably, 24.8% of the trials were retrospectively registered after the enrollment of the first study patient. Trials published in the 4 weekly medical journals enrolled significantly more patients (1801 vs 180; P<.001), received more often funding from the federal government (78.8% vs 35.6%; P<.001), and were more likely to be multicenter (90.9% vs 42.3%; P<.001), non-United States based (69.7% vs 49.0%; P=.03), and double blinded (45.5% vs 18.3%; P=.003) than trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. There was no difference in study type (noninferiority vs superiority) and trial quality characteristics, including pretrial registration, ethics approval statement, informed consent statement, and adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines statement between studies published in weekly medical journals and studies published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 45 trials in obstetrics are being published every year in the highest impact journals, with one-fourth being in the weekly medical journals and the remainder in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. Only about a third of published obstetrical trials are positive. Trials published in weekly medical journals are larger, more likely to be funded by the government, multicenter, international, and double blinded. Quality metrics are similar between weekly medical journals and obstetrics and gynecology journals.

Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) serve as the pillar of evidence-based medicine and guide medical practice. Compromised data integrity in RCTs undermines the authority of this valuable tool for science and puts patients at risk. Although a large number of retractions due to data issues in obstetrics and gynecology have occurred in the past few years, many problematic RCTs could still go uncovered because in general there is insufficient willingness to envisage and confront research misconduct. In this article, we discuss the necessity of assessing research misconduct, summarize methods that have been applied in detecting previous cases of misconduct, and propose potential solutions. There is no established mechanism to monitor feedback on published articles and the current system that handles potential research misconduct is unsatisfactory. Fortunately, there are methods to assess data integrity in RCTs both with and without individual participant data. Investigations into research misconduct can be facilitated by assessing all publications from a leading author or author group to identify duplication and patterns of ongoing misconduct. There is a pressing need to improve the mechanism that investigates data manipulation. The mechanism that handles misconduct should prioritize the interests of patients and readers rather than trial authors and their institutions. An equally urgent issue is to establish mechanisms that prevent compromised trials from polluting evidence synthesis or misguiding practice.

The PRECIS-2 tool seems not to be useful to discriminate the degree of pragmatism of medicine masked trials from that of open-label trials

PURPOSE

To assess, with all available trial information, whether the assessment of the PRECIS-2 nine domains could provide a clear distinction between medicine masked pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) and open-label pRCTs.

METHODS

A search was conducted of participant-level pRCTs on medicines published on 25 influential medical journals in July 2018-December 2019. All pre-licensing (phases 1-3) and cluster pRCTs were excluded. All trials' available reports were searched through the published article information, Google Scholar, and trial websites. Instead of providing a score to each PRECIS-2 domain, these were classified as E (explanatory), N (neutral), or P (pragmatic).

RESULTS

Of 128 pRCTs, 18 (14%) were participant-level pRCTs on medicines. The full trial protocol was available for 14 trials; 12 had published the protocol and nine had additional reports published. All trials were prospectively registered, and none was funded by industry. Ten and eight were masked and open-label trials, respectively. Masked pRCTS had 34% of pragmatic and 60% of explanatory domains; open-label pRCTS had 45% pragmatic and 45% explanatory domains. Among the 10 masked trials, only one had a majority of five pragmatic domains; among the eight open-label trials, four had a majority of six or five pragmatic domains. "Follow-up" was considered explanatory in the 18 pRCTs; "primary analysis" was pragmatic in 17 pRCTs.

CONCLUSION

The PRECIS-2 tool seems not to be sensitive enough to clearly discriminate between medicine masked pRCTs and open-label pRCTs. When conducting systematic reviews, it is suggested that the PRECIS-2 tool should not be used to support placing masked trials in the pragmatic side of the explanatory/pragmatic continuum.

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.

Articles provided insufficient information to conduct an appropriate retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of medicine trials with the PRECIS-2 tool

PURPOSE

To assess whether, in the retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs), the nine PRECIS-2 domain scores using the information provided in articles were modified after using the information reported in other publicly available sources.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of participant-level pRCTs published in July 2018 to December 2019 in the four highest-impact general medicine journals. The articles described the main results of pRCTs assessing medicines in one or more arms that were not in the pre-licensing phases. The information reported in trial full protocols, published protocols, and other publications, registries, and trial websites were assessed and scored, and compared with that previously obtained after reviewing the information reported in the articles.

RESULTS

Out of 76 articles on pRCTs, 13 (17%) were included in the analysis. All were two-arm trials, assessing medicines only (n = 7), medicine vs device (n = 2), medicine vs surgery (n = 1), or medicine vs placebo (n = 3). Seven were open-label trials, and six had any type of masking. All except one had the full protocol available and/or published protocol; seven had other types of publication available. The assessment of the nine PRECIS-2 domains with the information reported in the 13 articles was changed in all trials after using the information included in other additional available sources. Between one (n = 1 article) and six (n = 2) domains were modified in each pRCT. The domains that most commonly changed were "organization" (n = 12), "recruitment" (n = 11), and "follow-up" (n = 8). "Primary outcome" and "primary analysis" were not modified in any trial. Eight percent of all domains could not be assessed due to inadequate or lack of information in seven articles; those were "recruitment" (n = 3), "organization" (n = 3), "setting" (n = 2), and "flexibility:adherence" (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Articles describing the trial main results are usually insufficient for the appropriate retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of a pRCT by authors not involved in the conduct of the trial. To address this issue, editors should require the submission of the original full protocol and final full protocol with the history of amendments to be published as supplementary material to the article.

[Urological research in Germany : A retrospective, longitudinal observational study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The congress of the German Society of Urology reflects urologic research in German-speaking countries. The objective was to identify trends by analyzing the congress' abstracts and following full publications longitudinally.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The abstracts of the 2016 congress were systematically analyzed regarding content, study design, cooperation, following full publications and journals which they were published in. Thereafter, the 2016 congress was compared to the 2002 and 2009 congresses. Statistical analysis included χ²-, Mann-Whitney U-, Cochran-Armitage-, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

A total of 1073 abstracts were presented at the 2002, 2009, and 2016 congresses. We found an increase in abstracts regarding prostate disease (24.2%, 29.7%, and 34.0%; p = 0.0043), oncological abstracts (50.6%, 57.9%, and 61.7%; p = 0.003), multicenter studies (18.3, 28.6, and 34.3%; p < 0.0001) and cooperation (55.6%, 62.9%, and 70.5%, p < 0.0001). Experimental (29.0%, 33.2%, and 22.8%; p = 0.009) and prospective studies (62.1%, 42.0%, and 36.0%; p < 0.0001) declined. Abstracts including statistical analysis (18.4%, 14.7%, and 41.2%; p < 0.0001) and the impact factor of following full publications (2.08, 3.42, 4.42; p < 0.0001) rose. In 2016, 11.2% of those full publications were published Open Access. The publication rates of the presented abstracts were 49.1%, 56.3%, and 52.3%, respectively (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

National and international networking of the urological research community has increased. Presentation of prospective studies has declined. The rate of peer-reviewed full publications following the DGU abstracts remains at a stable high level over the three congresses. The publication rate in Open Access journals is low.

Prospective registration and reporting of trial number in randomised clinical trials: global cross sectional study of the adoption of ICMJE and Declaration of Helsinki recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the compliance with prospective registration and inclusion of the trial registration number (TRN) in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and to analyse the rationale behind, and detect selective registration bias in, retrospective trial registration.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, the 17 World Health Organization's trial registries, University of Toronto library, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of member journals, and the InCites Journal Citation Reports.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs registered in any WHO trial registry and published in any PubMed indexed journal in 2018.

RESULTS

This study included 10 500 manuscripts published in 2105 journals. Overall, 71.2% (7473/10500) reported the TRN and 41.7% (3013/7218) complied with prospective trial registration. The univariable and multivariable analyses reported significant relations (P<0.05) between reporting the TRN and the impact factor and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A significant relation (P<0.05) was also observed between prospective trial registration and the registry, region, condition, funding, trial size, interval between paper registration and submission dates, impact factor, and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A manuscript published in an ICMJE member journal was 5.8 times more likely to include the TRN (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 8.2), and a published trial was 1.8 times more likely to be registered prospectively (1.8, 1.5 to 2.2) when published in an ICMJE member journal compared with other journals. This study detected a new form of bias, selective registration bias, with a higher proportion (85.2% (616/723)) of trials registered retrospectively within a year of submission for publication. Higher rates of retrospective registrations were observed within the first three to eight weeks after enrolment of study participants. Within the 286 RCTs registered retrospectively and published in an ICMJE member journal, only 2.8% (8/286) of the authors included a statement justifying the delayed registration. Reasons included lack of awareness, error of omission, and the registration process taking longer than anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found a high compliance in reporting of the TRN for trial papers published in ICMJE member journals, but prospective trial registration was low.

Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs.

METHODS

This was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016 and registered protocols in ClinicalTrials.gov. We surveyed corresponding authors of included RCTs about their definitions of blinding. The primary outcome was the number of RCTs that explicitly described who was blinded in a trial. Secondary outcomes were definitions of blinding terminology in the trials; trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology; discrepancies in the blinding description within registered protocols and between registered protocols and publications.

RESULTS

Out of 622 analysed RCTs, 38% were not explicitly described as either open label or blinded studies and 10% did not report any information about blinding or lack of blinding. Only one manuscript fully reported the status of blinding for various individuals that may be involved with a trial. The most common descriptor was that a trial was double-blind. We found discrepant information regarding blinding in the majority of registered protocols. Even when there were no discrepancies in the registration, we found discrepancies in the reporting of blinding between the majority of registered protocols and published manuscripts. The survey of authors (40 responses from 231 eligible authors; 17% response rate) of analysed RCTs showed that they differed in how they defined different levels of blinding in trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient. For reporting guidelines, peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term 'double-blind' for different blinding practices.

Group sample sizes in nonregulated health care intervention trials described as randomized controlled trials were overly similar

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated whether sample sizes in different arms of two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trials of nonregulated interventions were systematically closer in size than would plausibly occur by chance if simple randomization had been applied.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed for trials of nonregulated health care interventions that did not report using restricted randomization from journals in behavioral sciences and psychology, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, rehabilitation, and surgery. We emailed trial authors to clarify randomization procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 148 nonregulated intervention trials that indicated they used simple randomization. Difference in trial arm sizes was smaller than would be predicted by chance if simple randomization had occurred in all trials (P < 0.001). Rather than approximately half of the trials being within a 50% prediction interval for the difference, 96% had differences within this interval. Results were similar and statistically significant (P < 0.001) for trials that were published in journals with impact factors ≥ 4 and when stratified by type of nonregulated intervention.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for education and better understanding of clinical trial methods to ensure that randomization procedures are implemented as intended and reported fully and accurately.

Randomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial scratching: assessment of methodological issues

STUDY QUESTION

Do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial scratching suffer from methodological issues including insufficient trial registration, statistical errors or irreproducibility, randomisation errors or miscellaneous issues?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The majority of RCTs investigating endometrial scratching have methodological issues.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A large number of small RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI)/intercourse have reported favourable findings. Subsequently, systematic reviews incorporating these RCTs yielded meta-analyses in favour of endometrial scratching. Endometrial scratching has been widely adopted by infertility specialists around the world. Recently, an international RCT including 1364 women reported no benefit from endometrial scratching before IVF.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We evaluated several methodological issues of RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to IVF and IUI/intercourse. We identified 25 RCTs for IVF and 12 RCTs for IUI/intercourse with full-text publication.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We assessed the RCTs on the following criteria: adequacy of trial registration, statistical issues (description of statistical methods and reproducibility of univariable statistical analysis), excessive similarity or difference in baseline characteristics that is not compatible with chance (Monte Carlo simulations and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and miscellaneous methodological issues.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of 25 RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching prior to IVF, only eight (32%) had adequate trial registration. In total, 10 (40%) RCTs had issues regarding statistical methods. Nine (69%, 13 applicable) RCTs had at least one inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable statistical analysis for categorical baseline/intermediate characteristics. Statistical results of at least one outcome were not reproducible in 14 (74%, 19 applicable) RCTs. Only two (8%) RCTs had none of the above issues. Suggested by the simulations, these RCTs did not significantly violate the null hypothesis that the baseline characteristics were the results of a properly conducted randomisation process (P = 0.4395).

Of 12 IUI/intercourse RCTs, only 2 (17%) had adequate trial registration. In total, five (42%) studies had issues of statistical methods. Inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable analysis for baseline/intermediate categorical variable(s) was found in four (57%, 7 applicable) RCTs. Statistical analysis was not reproducible for at least one outcome in eight (80%, 10 applicable) studies. All RCTs had at least one of the above issues. These RCTs were inconsistent with the null hypothesis that their baseline characteristics were the results of proper randomised allocation (P = 1.659*10−7).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were unable to assess RCTs which were not published as full-text papers. We could not analyse individual participant data to investigate possible reasons for statistical inconsistencies. The method to infer the likelihood of proper random sampling rests on assumptions including independent baseline characteristics, simple randomisation and no publication bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The methodological issues common to RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching may have biased the results of the trials. Further development and validation of these novel methods may be helpful for the critical appraisal of RCTs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was sought to support this work. B.W.M. is supported by a National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. D.W. is supported by a grant from the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Austria (PMU Research Fund—PMU FFF Number: L-18/02/006-WET) and by Drs Haackert Foundation, Germany. S.L. is an author of a trial included in this study, an author of an included systematic review and a Cochrane editor. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A

The clinical trial transparency in oncology significantly increased over the recent years

OBJECTIVE

Persistent efforts have been made to promote clinical trial transparency, which included encouraging trial registration and prospective registration, as well as protocol disclosure. This study aims to analyze the extent of registration, prospective registration and protocol disclosure in oncology clinical trials and their changing trends.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

All phase II and phase III oncology clinical trials published in 5 major journals, the Annals of Oncology, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, JAMA Oncology, The Lancet Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine, between January 2013 and December 2017, were included. Data on trial characteristics as well as registration status and availability of protocol and its location were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 625 articles were included, 92% were registered, of which 76% were prospectively registered. Overall, 27% provided protocols. Increasing trends were observed in registration, prospective registration, and protocol disclosure (all P < 0.001). Studies with enrollment number larger than median number were more likely to be registered (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 3.14 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21-8.15]) and to provide protocols (aOR, 3.84 [95% CI, 2.24-6.57]) than those with smaller enrollment number. Studies with nonindustry funding was less likely to be prospectively registered (aOR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.25-0.55]) but more likely to provide protocols (aOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.13-2.52]) than those with industry funding only.

CONCLUSION

Although the rates of registration, prospective registration, and protocol disclosure of oncology trials have significantly increased over the years, there is still room for improvement.

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.

Evaluation of Journal Registration Policies and Prospective Registration of Randomized Clinical Trials of Nonregulated Health Care Interventions

IMPORTANCE

Many interventions that are important to the health care of patients are not subject to regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or comparable regulatory bodies in other nations.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether specialty journals that publish trials of primarily nonregulated health care interventions require prospective registration and whether the prospective registration policies are associated with the publication of prospectively registered trials, trials with adequately registered outcomes, and trials with primary outcomes consistent with the registered primary outcomes.

DESIGN AND METHODS

PubMed was searched daily, from March 18, 2016, to September 17, 2016, for nonregulated intervention randomized clinical trials. The search included all journals in the Clarivate Analytics Science Citation Index Expanded categories of behavioral sciences, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, psychology, rehabilitation, and surgery. Trials of interventions not subject to FDA regulation were included. One investigator extracted journal registration policy and trial registration status. Two investigators independently extracted trial registration and publication characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For journals, the main outcome was the trial registration policy. For trials, the main outcomes were prospective registration, adequacy of outcome registration, and concordance of registered with published primary outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 953 nonregulated intervention trials published in 254 journals were identified. Prospective registration was required for publication by 29 (11.4%) of 254 journals, and an additional 12 journals (4.7%) had conditional date-based requirements. Only 189 (19.8%) of the 953 trials were registered prospectively, including 33 of 98 published in journals with prospective registration policies as compared with 156 of 855 in journals without policies (33.7% vs 18.2%; P = .004). Among the 17 journals that required prospective registration and had at least 2 included trials, none had a prospective registration of more than 50%. In journals with policies, only 3 of 98 trials included primary outcomes consistent with prospectively, adequately registered outcomes, as compared with 34 of 852 trials in journals without policies (3.1% vs 4.0%; P = .62).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Few journals in behavioral sciences or psychology, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, rehabilitation, and surgery require prospective trial registration, and those with existing registration policies rarely enforce them; this finding suggests that strategies for encouraging prospective registration of clinical trials not subject to FDA regulation should be developed and tested.

Outcomes in Clinical Trials Evaluating Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Hepatic Encephalopathy

Randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews of research findings can provide high-quality evidence for decision-making in the management of patients with hepatic encephalopathy. A large number of clinical trials have been undertaken, over the last 50 years, relative to the prevention and treatment of this condition. However, changes have been made, during this time, in the classification of hepatic encephalopathy, diagnostic criteria and assessment measures. These temporally based changes and the consequent lack of standardisation make it difficult to compare interventions and to evaluate their comparative efficacy and safety. While some consensus has been reached in relation to the diagnostic evaluation, classification and monitoring of patients in clinical trials, there is less surety about the choice of clinical endpoints. These outcome measures should be universally applicable, easily measured and clinically relevant. This article reviews the current recommendations regarding outcome selection and outlines some of the potential problems and pitfalls inherent in clinical trial evaluating interventions for the management of hepatic encephalopathy.

Software engineering principles address current problems in the systematic review ecosystem

Systematic reviewers are simultaneously unable to produce systematic reviews fast enough to keep up with the availability of new trial evidence while overproducing systematic reviews that are unlikely to change practice because they are redundant or biased. Although the transparency and completeness of trial reporting has improved with changes in policy and new technologies, systematic reviews have not yet benefited from the same level of effort. We found that new methods and tools used to automate aspects of systematic review processes have focused on improving the efficiency of individual systematic reviews rather than the efficiency of the entire ecosystem of systematic review production. We use software engineering principles to review challenges and opportunities for improving the interoperability, integrity, efficiency, and maintainability. We conclude by recommending ways to improve access to structured systematic review results. Major opportunities for improving systematic reviews will come from new tools and changes in policy focused on doing the right systematic reviews rather than just doing more of them faster.

Registration audit of clinical trials given a favourable opinion by UK research ethics committees

OBJECTIVE

To determine levels of public registration for a cohort of clinical trials reviewed and given a favourable opinion by research ethics committees in the United Kingdom.

STUDY DESIGN

Audit of records.

SETTING

Clinical trials receiving a favourable ethics opinion between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Correlation between trials on the UK research ethics committee database and any primary registry entry on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform or clinicaltrials.gov as of 29 August 2017 (14 to 20 months after the favourable ethics committee opinion).

RESULTS

Over the study period 1014 trials received a favourable ethics opinion, with 397 (39%) registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, and 18 with an agreed clinical trial registration deferral. Excluding these trials, the total number subsequently requiring registration was 599, and of these 405 (40% of total) were found to be registered. Follow-up with the 194 investigators or sponsors of trials not found to be registered produced 121 responses with a further 10 (1%) trials having already registered, 55 commitments to register and a variety of other responses. The overall registration rate was therefore 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite researchers and sponsors being reminded that registration of clinical trials is a condition of the research ethics committee (REC) favourable opinion, one-fifth of clinical trials either had not been registered, or their registration could not easily be found, 14 to 20 months after receiving the favourable opinion letter. The methodology trialled here proved effective, and although there are positive indications of a culture change towards greater registration, our results show that more still needs to be done to increase trial registration.

Registration, results reporting, and publication bias of clinical trials supporting FDA approval of neuropsychiatric drugs before and after FDAAA: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Mandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.

Results

The FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p < 0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p < 0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17–1.99; p = 0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 2.47; CI = 1.57–3.73; p < 0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR = 1; CI = 1–1, p = NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 1.20; CI = 0.84–1.72; p = 0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR = 1.52; CI = 1.16–1.99; p = 0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR = 2.06, CI = 1.17–3.61, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2957-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Clinical trial registration in fertility trials - a case for improvement?

STUDY QUESTION

What is the prevalence and source of prospectively and retrospectively registered and unregistered trials in fertility treatments?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Trial registration is low and does not appear to be changing over the 5 years studied.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Trial registration is associated with lower risk of bias than in unregistered trials.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register was searched on 5 November 2015 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to December 2014.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Eligible trials included randomised women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text, and written in English. Two reviewers independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors.

MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE

Of 693 eligible RCTS, only 44% were registered trials. Of 309 registered trials, 21.7% were prospectively registered, 15.8% were registered within 6 months of first patient enrolment and 62.5% were retrospectively registered trials. Prospective trial registration by country varied from 0% to 100%. The highest frequency of prospective trial registration amongst the top 10 publishing countries was 31% in the Netherlands.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Only English language trials were included in this review.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Prospective trial registration is still low. Journals, funders and ethics committees could have a greater role to increase trial registration.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

University of Auckland. No competing interests.

Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, "The Final Rule" (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a "University/Organization" in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis.

RESULTS

Eligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02-0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a "best case" scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Before the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research.

Prospective registration trends, reasons for retrospective registration and mechanisms to increase prospective registration compliance: descriptive analysis and survey

OBJECTIVES

To analyse prospective versus retrospective trial registration trends on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and to evaluate the reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration.

DESIGN

Part 1: Descriptive analysis of trial registration trends from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Online registrant survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Part 1: All interventional trials registered on ANZCTR from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Random sample of those who had retrospectively registered a trial on ANZCTR between 2010 and 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Part 1: Proportion of prospective versus retrospective clinical trial registrations (ie, registration before versus after enrolment of the first participant) on the ANZCTR overall and by various key metrics, such as sponsor, funder, recruitment country and sample size. Part 2: Reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration and perceived usefulness of various proposed mechanisms to improve prospective registration compliance.

RESULTS

Part 1: Analysis of the complete dataset of 9450 trials revealed that compliance with prospective registration increased from 48% (216 out of 446 trials) in 2006 to 63% (723/1148) in 2012 and has since plateaued at around 64%. Patterns of compliance were relatively consistent across sponsor and funder types (industry vs non-industry), type of intervention (drug vs non-drug) and size of trial (n<100, 100-500, >500). However, primary sponsors from Australia/New Zealand were almost twice as likely to register prospectively (62%; 4613/7452) compared with sponsors from other countries with a WHO Network Registry (35%; 377/1084) or sponsors from countries without a WHO Registry (29%; 230/781). Part 2: The majority (56%; 84/149) of survey respondents cited lack of awareness as a reason for not registering their study prospectively. Seventy-four per cent (111/149) stated that linking registration to ethics approval would facilitate prospective registration.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some progress, compliance with prospective registration remains suboptimal. Linking registration to ethics approval was the favoured strategy among those sampled for improving compliance.

Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the characteristics and publication fate of improperly registered clinical trials submitted to a medical journal (The BMJ) over a 4-year period to identify common types of registration issues and their relation to publication outcomes.

DESIGN

Research articles submitted to The BMJ and identified as unregistered or retrospectively registered by editors were included if they reported outcomes of a clinical trial. Relevant data regarding the trials were then extracted from each paper. Trials were categorised as prospectively registered, registered in an unapproved registry, unregistered or other, and explanations for registration deficiencies were grouped into six categories. We searched PubMed and Google to determine whether, where and when improperly registered studies were subsequently published and whether registration issues were disclosed.

RESULTS

123 research papers reporting apparently unregistered or retrospectively registered clinical trials were identified. 110 studies (89.4%) were retrospectively registered, nine (7.3%) were unregistered, three (2.4%) had been registered in an unapproved registry and one study originally lacking registration details was later discovered to have been prospectively registered. 82 studies (66.6%) were funded entirely or in part by government sources, and only seven studies (5.7%) received funding from industry. Of those papers submitted to The BMJ through the end of 2015, 67 of the 70 papers rejected for registration problems (95.7%) were subsequently published in another journal. The registration problem was disclosed in only 2 (2.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Improper registration remains a problem, particularly for clinical trials that are government or foundation-funded. Nonetheless, improperly registered trials are almost always published, suggesting that medical journal editors may not actively enforce registration requirements.

Clinical Trials Transparency: Where Are We Today?

To prevent reporting bias, policies and regulations mandating trial prospective registration and disclosure of results have been implemented since 2005. To achieve full trial transparency, open access to participants' deidentified data policies have been issued. Funders and journals have made critical decisions on these requirements in 2017 that will impact the current scenario.

Postmarketing studies for novel drugs approved by both the FDA and EMA between 2005 and 2010: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To characterise postmarketing studies for drugs that were newly approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional analysis of postmarketing studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov until September 2014 for all novel drugs approved by both regulators between 2005 and 2010. Regulatory documents from both agencies were used.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

All identified postmarketing studies were classified according to planned enrolment, funding, status and geographical location, and we determined whether studies studied the originally approved indication.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 novel drugs approved between 2005 and 2010 were eligible for inclusion. A total of 6679 relevant postmarketing studies were identified; 5972 were interventional (89.4%). The median number of studies per drug was 55 (IQR 33-119) and median number of patients to be enrolled per study was 60 (IQR 28-183). Industry was the primary sponsor of 2713 studies (40.6%) and was a primary or secondary sponsor in 4176 studies (62.5%). In all, 2901 studies (43.4%) were completed, 487 (7.3%) terminated, 1013 (15.2%) active yet not recruiting, 1895 (28.4%) recruiting and 319 (4.8%) not yet recruiting. A total of 80% of studies were conducted in only one country and 84.4% took place in Europe and/or North America; 2441 (36.5%) studied another indication than the originally approved indication. Studies designed in the originally approved indication were found to be more industry-sponsored than others 68.7%vs53.7%; P<0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Postmarketing pharmaceutical research was highly variable and predominantly located in North America and Europe. Postmarketing studies were frequently designed to study indications other than the originally approved one. Although some findings were reassuring, others question the lack of coordination of postmarketing research.

Trial registry searches for randomized controlled trials of new drugs required registry-specific adaptation to achieve adequate sensitivity

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new drugs in trial registries and to develop and test different search strategies in ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov), the EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Information from dossiers submitted by pharmaceutical companies was analyzed regarding the registration of the included RCTs in CT.gov, EU-CTR and ICTRP; different search strategies were developed and tested to determine performance.

RESULTS

A total of 192 (95%) of 203 RCTs on newly approved drugs were registered in CT.gov; the 11 nonregistered trials were completed before 2005 or represented non-RCTs. Simple searches for RCTs on 18 new drugs using the generic drug name yielded a sensitivity of 94% in CT.gov (EU-CTR: 71%; ICTRP: 60%). The main reason for study nondetection was the sole use of the drug code in the registry entries. Simple searches for RCTs on 13 conditions using reasonably inferred search terms yielded a sensitivity of 100% in CT.gov.

CONCLUSION

Almost all relevant RCTs on newly approved drugs will probably be identified in CT.gov alone. A sensitive search in CT.gov can be conducted using single search terms. The searches in ICTRP and EU-CTR should include several search terms (e.g., derived via text analysis).

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.

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Background

As publishing is essential but competitive for researchers, difficulties in writing and submitting medical articles to biomedical journals are disabling. The DIAzePAM (Difficultés des Auteurs à la Publication d’Articles Médicaux) survey aimed to assess the difficulties experienced by researchers in the AP-HP (Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, i.e., Paris Hospitals Board, France), the largest public health institution in Europe, when preparing articles for biomedical journals. The survey also aimed to assess researchers’ satisfaction and perceived needs.

Methods

A 39-item electronic questionnaire based on qualitative interviews was addressed by e-mail to all researchers registered in the AP-HP SIGAPS (Système d’Interrogation, de Gestion et d’Analyse des Publications Scientifiques) bibliometric database.

Results

Between 28 May and 15 June 2015, 7766 researchers should have received and read the e-mail, and 1191 anonymously completed the questionnaire (<45 years of age: 63%; women: 55%; physician: 81%; with PhD or Habilitation à Diriger des recherches––accreditation to direct research––: 45%). 94% of respondents had published at least one article in the previous 2 years. 76% of respondents felt they were not publishing enough, mainly because of lack of time to write (79%) or submit (27%), limited skills in English (40%) or in writing (32%), and difficulty in starting writing (35%). 87% of respondents would accept technical support, especially in English reediting (79%), critical reediting (63%), formatting (52%), and/or writing (41%), to save time (92%) and increase high-impact-factor journal submission and acceptance (75%). 79% of respondents would appreciate funding support for their future publications, for English reediting (56%), medical writing (21%), or publication (38%) fees. They considered that this funding support could be covered by AP-HP (73%) and/or by the added financial value obtained by their department from previous publications (56%).

Conclusions

The DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0371-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

BACKGROUND

Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time.

RESULTS

In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R ² = 0.02, p = 0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R ² = 0.01, p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.

Clinical research data sharing: what an open science world means for researchers involved in evidence synthesis

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recently announced a bold step forward to require data generated by interventional clinical trials that are published in its member journals to be responsibly shared with external investigators. The movement toward a clinical research culture that supports data sharing has important implications for the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. While data sharing is likely to enhance the science of evidence synthesis, facilitating the identification and inclusion of all relevant research, it will also pose key challenges, such as requiring broader search strategies and more thorough scrutiny of identified research. Furthermore, the adoption of data sharing initiatives by the clinical research community should challenge the community of researchers involved in evidence synthesis to follow suit, including the widespread adoption of systematic review registration, results reporting, and data sharing, to promote transparency and enhance the integrity of the research process.

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.