Appropriate Clinical Trial Registration Is the Key to Transparent Reporting and Publication

Rehabilitation clinical trials in global registries: reporting of participant inclusion by sex, age, race and ethnicity

PURPOSE

Registries of clinical trials exist in part to standardize data for the scientific community. Studies in the United States demonstrated gaps in reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate clinical trial participation among global registries.

METHODS

This study identified registries with results reported and assessed available results for physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) diagnosis, intervention, primary outcome, and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) categories. Participant characteristics including sex, age, and race/ethnicity were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 93 rehabilitation trials from eight registries met inclusion criteria. Most trials included persons with musculoskeletal disorders (50.5%), technology such as robotics (25.8%) and outcomes in ICF category of body functions and structures (54.7%). Sex was reported in 61.3% of trials and varied among registries (0 to 100%). Participation of women in trials showed variability from 0 to 75%. Reporting of age of the participants was not uniform and six registries did not include age in all trials. Information about race/ethnicity was absent in most trials and registries.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on trials registered with accessible results, these findings may reveal either a gap in reporting results or a lack of trials investigating important PRM diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes.Implications for RehabilitationThis study contributes to the growing body of evidence that there are gaps in standardization of rehabilitation results reported on clinical trials registries.The uniform reporting of results is an important component of advancing rehabilitation science and may be a factor in high-quality study design and improved transparency.

Trials and tribulations of transparency related to inconsistencies between plan and conduct in peer-reviewed physiotherapy publications: A methodology review

RATIONALE

The physiotherapy profession strives to be a leader in providing quality care and strongly recognizes the value of research to guide clinical practice. Adherence to guidelines for research reporting and conduct is a significant step towards high-quality, transparent and reproducible research.

AIM/OBJECTIVE

Assess integrity between planned and conducted methodology in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in physiotherapy journals.

METHODS

Eighteen journals were manually searched for RCTs and SRs published from 1 July 2021 through 31 December 2021. Studies were included if the journal or specific study was indexed in PubMed and published/translated in English. Descriptive statistics determined congruence between preregistration data and publication.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs and 68 SRs were assessed. Forty-three SRs included meta-analysis (MA). Of the 34 registered RCTs, 7 (20.6%) had no discrepancy between the registration and publication. Two trials (5.9%) addressed all discrepancies, 4 (11.8%) addressed some and 21 (61.8%) did not address any discrepancies. Of the 36 registered MAs, 33 (91.7%) had discrepancies between the registration and publication. Two (5.6%) addressed all discrepancies and three (8.3%) had no discrepancies. Eight SRs without MA published information not matching their registration, and none provided justification for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs/SRs were registered; the majority had discrepancies between preregistration and publication, potentially influencing the outcomes and interpretations of findings. Journals should require preregistration and compare the submission with the registration information when assessing publication suitability. Readers should be aware of these inconsistencies and their implications when interpreting and translating results into practice.