Legislation for trial registration and data transparency

Comprehensive review of Korean Medicine registries 2015-2023

Background

Despite the increasing popularity of Korean Medicine (KM), its scientific evidence faces scrutiny. Instead of randomized controlled trials, registries are favored to capture the real world of KM practice due to the difficulties associated with proper control and the holistic nature of the KM approach. This review aimed to examine the KM registries in detail, identify the scope and focus of studies within this field, and assess the research trends.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive analysis of KM registries listed in trial registration platforms, covering records from their inception until the end of 2023. The selection criteria aimed to include studies focusing on various interventions related to KM, with data extraction focusing on study characteristics and outcomes measured. The analysis utilized descriptive statistics to summarize the findings.

Results

We identified a steady increase in registry studies (2015, one; 2023, seven). Musculoskeletal disorders were most studied (28%), aligning with patients' demand. The involvement of 112 primary clinics and Quality of Life (QOL) as the predominant outcome in 14 (66.7%) registries demonstrates the positive impact on patient well-being and the critical role that primary clinics play in KM practice.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate a heightened interest and commitment to evidence-based KM practices. Future Registries should be implemented on a large scale, incorporating long-term follow-up encompassing primary clinics. This approach would enable a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of KM interventions, as well as offer valuable insights into the influence of KM on chronic conditions and QOL.

Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals

BACKGROUND

Studies reporting statistically significant effect estimates tend to be more frequently published compared to studies reporting non-significant or equivalent estimates. Consequently, this may lead to distortion of the literature. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of reporting statistically significant effect estimates in leading oral health journals and to explore associations between the effect estimates and record characteristics.

METHODS

An electronic database search was undertaken of a selection of leading oral health journals including general oral health journals to identify primary oral health records published in 2019. Descriptive statistics and population average GEE logistic regression model was used to assess associations between articles reporting a statistically significant effect estimate and the record characteristics.

RESULTS

In 1335 records, 82.4% records reported a statistically significant effect estimate. All speciality journals compared to general oral health journals were less likely to publish a record with significant effect estimates. Authors based in Asia or other (OR 1.49; 95% CI :1.02,2.19; p = 0.037) were more likely to report significant effect estimates compared to those based in Europe. Interventional (OR 0.35; 0.22,0.58; p < 0.001) and observational (OR 0.56; 0.36, 0.89; p = 0.013) records were less likely to report significant effect estimates compared to in-vitro studies. Registered records were less likely to report significant effect estimates when compared to non-registered studies (OR 0.22; 95% CI :0.14,0.32; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The publishing of records with significant effect estimates is prevalent within the oral health literature. To reduce dissemination bias and overestimation of effect sizes in systematic reviews, the publishing of studies with non-significant or equivalent effect estimates should be encouraged.

The characteristics of registered acupuncture clinical trials enrolling cancer patients

PURPOSE

This study sought to explore and summarize the global state of acupuncture clinical trials enrolling cancer patients included in international registries to date.

METHODS

All relevant trials evaluating acupuncture-related interventions for the treatment of cancer that were registered in 16 trial registries from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2020, were identified. Subsequent publications related to these trials were additionally retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP (China Science and Technology Journal Database), and Wanfang databases. We compared information included in these registries regarding completed trials with any associated publications, with a focus on study design, sample size, and selective reporting, based on the registered protocol.

RESULTS

In total, 222 eligible trials across 19 countries were identified. These trials included 17 specific cancer types and 32 symptoms. The five most common cancer types were breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and gastric cancer, accounting for almost half of all registered trials (48.2%). The top five symptoms included in these trials were chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), cancer-related pain, cancer-related fatigue, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and gastrointestinal dysfunction. The overall rate of article publication was low, with publications being associated with just 33.3% of these registered trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This review is the first snapshot of the landscape of acupuncture clinical trials registered in international trial registries, providing a methodological basis for the management of common treatment- and disease-related side effects among cancer patients undergoing acupuncture and offering useful information that will guide future acupuncture-focused research.

Open science: The open clinical trials data journey

Open data sharing and access has the potential to promote transparency and reproducibility in research, contribute to education and training, and prompt innovative secondary research. Yet, there are many reasons why researchers don't share their data. These include, among others, time and resource constraints, patient data privacy issues, lack of access to appropriate funding, insufficient recognition of the data originators' contribution, and the concern that commercial or academic competitors may benefit from analyses based on shared data. Nevertheless, there is a positive interest within and across the research and patient communities to create shared data resources. In this perspective, we will try to highlight the spectrum of "openness" and "data access" that exists at present and highlight the strengths and weakness of current data access platforms, present current examples of data sharing platforms, and propose guidelines to revise current data sharing practices going forward.

An overview of primary registries of WHO's international clinical trial registry platform

Introduction:

WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) has 17 primary registries that collect the information on the minimum set of items of trial information that appear in the register and these registries are also endorsed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Objective:

The objective of this study is to describe the profile of all the primary registries including Clinical Trial Registry‑India (CTRI), through features such as magnitude, domain of registration, flagging, audit trail, language, mandatory requirements, and result disclosure.

Methodology:

The profiling of all registries was based on countries and zones, year of establishment, registrant, flagging, conflict of interest, language, documents, result disclosure, type of study, mode of registration, mandate of registration, quality check method, individual patient data statement and translation of content facility. The mode of search used was online which included advanced search, basic search and also from the audio/video manual on their website.

Results:

There are 17 primary registries of ICTRP, the first one International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) of England being initiated in year 2000 and the most recent being Lebanese registry, in September 2019. The trials registered with these registries range from 301 in Cuba to 53972 in European union's EU Clinical Trials Register. The primary registries in WHO registry network are diverse in functionalities and practices. The characteristics of online registers vary in content and features and to achieve coordinated level of data quality, across all the different registries and to keep a balance in standards of the data collected and validation of that data, the registries are adhering to the minimum data set items laid down by ICTRP.

Conclusion:

The very process of registering the clinical studies helps in promoting the research methods and also raising the standards of research, especially among young researchers. It also helps in reducing the duplicity of research.

Quality assessment of clinical trial registration with traditional Chinese medicine in WHO registries

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the registration quality of clinical trials (CTs) with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and identify the common problems if any.

METHODS

The ICTRP database was searched for all TCM CTs that were registered up to 31 December 2017. Registered information of each trial was collected from specific registry involved in ICTRP through hyperlink. The primary analysis was to assess the reporting quality of registered trials with TCM interventions, which is based on the minimum 20 items of WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS, V.1.2.1) plus optional additional three items recommended by ICTRP, and some specific items for TCM information (including TCM intervention, diagnosis, outcome and rationale). Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyse the baseline characteristics of TCM trial registrations.

RESULTS

A total of 3339 records in 15 registries were examined. The number of TCM registered trials has increased rapidly after the requirement of mandatory trial registration proposed by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on 1 July 2005, and the top two registries were Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClincialTrials.gov. Of 3339 trials, 61% were prospective registration and 12.8% shared resultant publications. There were 2955 interventional trials but none of them had a 100% reporting rate of the minimum 20 items and additional three items. The reporting quality of these 23 items was not optimal due to 11 of them had a lower reporting rate (<65%). For TCM details, 49.2% lacked information on description of TCM intervention(s), 85.9% did not contain TCM diagnosis criteria, 92.6% did not use TCM outcome(s) and 67.1% lacked information on TCM background and rationale.

CONCLUSION

The registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by prospective registration, full completion of WHO TRDS, full reporting of TCM information and results sharing. Further full set of trial registration items for TCM trials should be developed thus to standardise the content of TCM trial registration.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: data access and sharing-can we be more transparent about clinical research? Let's do what's right for patients

Calls for greater transparency and 'open data access' in clinical research are widespread, from sources including the Executive Office of the President, which in 2013 called for increased access to the results of federally funded research. In 2015, The Institute of Medicine issued a report advocating for a multi-stakeholder effort to foster responsible data sharing, and there are many others. Open science is good for researchers, good for innovation, and good for patients. The question at the center of the open-science efforts for clinical trials should not be whether data should be shared, but rather how we can usher in responsible methods for doing so. Unfortunately, there remain numerous perceived barriers to complete transparency around clinical trial data. This paper reviews the current status of data disclosure, the barriers to achieving it and a suggestion for the future.

Kidney function and specific mortality in 60-80 years old post-myocardial infarction patients: A 10-year follow-up study

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly prevalent among older post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. It is not known whether CKD is an independent risk factor for mortality in older post-MI patients with optimal cardiovascular drug-treatment. Therefore, we studied the relation between kidney function and all-cause and specific mortality among older post-MI patients, without severe heart failure, who are treated with state-of-the-art pharmacotherapy. From 2002-2006, 4,561 Dutch post-MI patients were enrolled and followed until death or January 2012. We estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) with cystatin C (cysC) and creatinine (cr) using the CKD-EPI equations and analyzed the relation with any and major causes of death using Cox models and restricted cubic splines. Mean (SD) for age was 69 years (5.6), 79% were men, 17% smoked, 21% had diabetes, 90% used antihypertensive drugs, 98% used antithrombotic drugs and 85% used statins. Patients were divided into four categories of baseline eGFRcysC: ≥90 (33%; reference), 60-89 (47%), 30-59 (18%), and <30 (2%) ml/min/1.73m2. Median follow-up was 6.4 years. During follow-up, 873 (19%) patients died: 370 (42%) from cardiovascular causes, 309 (35%) from cancer, and 194 (22%) from other causes. After adjustment for age, sex and classic cardiovascular risk factor, hazard ratios (95%-confidence intervals) for any death according to the four eGFRcysC categories were: 1 (reference), 1.4 (1.1-1.7), 2.9 (2.3-3.6) and 4.4 (3.0-6.4). The hazard ratios of all-cause and cause-specific mortality increased linearly below kidney functions of 80 ml/min/1.73 m2. Weaker results were obtained for eGFRcr. To conclude, we found in optimal cardiovascular drug-treated post-MI patients an inverse graded relation between kidney function and mortality for both cardiovascular as well as non-cardiovascular causes. Risk of mortality increased linearly below kidney function of about 80 ml/min/1.73 m2.

Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013

OBJECTIVES

To analyse developments (and their causes) in the number and proportion of clinical trials that were registered in different parts of the world after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced in 2004 that it would require registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication.

SETTING

The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

DESIGN

The ICTRP database was searched for all clinical trials that were registered up to 31 December 2013.

RESULTS

The ICTRP database contained data on 186,523 interventional clinical trials. The annual number of registered clinical trials increased from 3294 in 2004 to 23,384 in 2013. Relative to the number of clinical trial research publications, the global number of registered clinical trials increased fivefold between 2004 and 2013, rising particularly strongly between 2004 and 2005. In certain regions, especially Asia, the annual number of registered trials increased more gradually and continued to increase up to 2013. In India and Japan, two countries with marked but more gradual increases, these increases only happened after several local measures were implemented that encouraged and enforced registration. In most regions, there was a trend toward trials being registered at local registries.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial registration has greatly improved transparency in clinical trial research. However, these improvements have not taken place equally in all parts of the world. Achieving compliance with registration requires a coalescence of global and local measures, and remains a key challenge in many countries. Poor quality of registered trial data and the inaccessibility of trial protocols, results and participant-level data further undermine the potential benefits of clinical trial registration. National and regional registries and the ICTRP have played a leading role in achieving the successes of trial registration to date and should be supported in addressing these challenges in the future.

The quality of registration of clinical trials: still a problem

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of clinical trials registration include improved transparency on clinical trials for healthcare workers and patients, increased accountability of trialists, the potential to address publication bias and selective reporting, and possibilities for research collaboration and prioritization. However, poor quality of information in registered records of trials has been found to undermine these benefits in the past. Trialists' increasing experience with trial registration and recent developments in registration systems may have positively affected data quality. This study was conducted to investigate whether the quality of registration has improved.

METHODS

We repeated a study from 2009, using the same methods and the same research team. A random sample of 400 records of clinical trials that were registered between 01/01/2012 and 01/01/2013 was taken from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and assessed for the quality of information on 1) contact details, 2) interventions and 3) primary outcomes. Results were compared to the equivalent assessments from our previous study.

RESULTS

There was a small and not statistically significant increase from 81.0% to 85.5% in the percentage of records that provided a name of a contact person. There was a significant increase from 68.7% to 74.9% in the number of records that provided either an email address or a telephone number. There was a significant increase from 44.2% to 51.9% in the number of intervention arms that were complete in registering intervention specifics. There was a significant increase from 38.2% to 57.6% in the number of primary outcomes that were specific measures with a meaningful timeframe. Approximately half of all trials continued to be retrospectively registered.

DISCUSSION

There have been small but significant improvements in the quality of registration since 2009. Important problems with quality remain and continue to constitute an impediment to the meaningful utilization of registered trial information.

Fraud in scientific research - birth of the Concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom

Fraud in research has risen exponentially and recent high profile cases may just be the tip of the iceberg. This threatens to have a major impact on public health, with policy makers and clinicians acting on erroneous data. To address this, the new research "Concordat", a consensus statement on research misconduct, has been published. Can it hold the key to rebuilding public confidence in scientific research in the United Kingdom? This review focuses on the concept of research misconduct, highlighting prominent cases and discussing strategies in order to restore confidence in the validity of scientific research.

Extending the CONSORT Statement to moxibustion

The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM), in the form of a checklist and descriptions of checklist items, were designed to improve reporting of moxibustion trials, and thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. The STRICTOM checklist included 7 items and 16 sub-items. These set out reporting guidelines for the moxibustion rationale, details of moxibustion, treatment regimen, other components of treatment, treatment provider background, control and comparator interventions, and precaution measures. In addition, there were descriptions of each item and examples of good reporting. It is intended that the STRICTOM can be used in conjunction with the main CONSORT Statement, extensions for nonpharmacologic treatment and pragmatic trials, and thereby raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of moxibustion. Further comments will be solicited from the experts of the CONSORT Group, the STRICTA Group, acupuncture and moxibustion societies, and clinical trial authors for optimizing the STRICTOM.

Use of data from registered clinical trials to identify gaps in health research and development

OBJECTIVE

To explore what can be learnt about the current composition of the "global landscape" of health research and development (R&D) from data on the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

METHODS

A random 5% sample of the records of clinical trials that were registered as interventional and actively recruiting was taken from the ICTRP database.

FINDINGS

Overall, 2381 records of trials were investigated. Analysis of these records indicated that, for every million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) caused by communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions, by noncommunicable diseases, or by injuries, the ICTRP database contained an estimated 7.4, 52.4 and 6.0 trials in which these causes of burden of disease were being investigated, respectively. For every million DALYs in high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income and low-income countries, an estimated 292.7, 13.4, 3.0 and 0.8 registered trials, respectively, were recruiting in such countries.

CONCLUSION

The ICTRP constitutes a valuable resource for assessing the global distribution of clinical trials and for informing policy development for health R&D. Populations in lower-income countries receive much less attention, in terms of clinical trial research, than populations in higher-income countries.

A proposal for reducing the effect of one of many causes of publication bias

In order to avoid publication bias, all trials should be registered at initiation and their results made easily accessible. However, some trial results are more difficult to publish than others. This report describes one such trial and highlights the need for a way of making results of trials widely available even if not presented in the traditional format. Until such time as it is required by law both to register all trials and enter their final results into the database, a lack of resources will mean that some trial results are never published. The scale of the problem of non-publication is unknown and for valid trial results any form of publication is better than none. Therefore it is essential that a quick and easy way is available to act as a safety net to catch trial results that would otherwise be lost.

Timely and complete publication of economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Little is known about the extent and nature of publication bias in economic evaluations. Our objective was to determine whether economic evaluations are subject to publication bias by considering whether economic data are as likely to be reported, and reported as promptly, as effectiveness data.

METHODS

Trials that intended to conduct an economic analysis and ended before 2008 were identified in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register; a random sample of 100 trials was retrieved. Fifty comparator trials were randomly drawn from those not identified as intending to conduct an economic study. The trial start and end dates, estimated sample size and funder type were extracted. For trials planning economic evaluations, effectiveness and economic publications were sought; publication dates and journal impact factors were extracted. Effectiveness abstracts were assessed for whether they reached a firm conclusion that one intervention was most effective. Primary investigators were contacted about reasons for non-publication of results, or reasons for differential publication strategies for effectiveness and economic results.

RESULTS

Trials planning an economic study were more likely to be funded by government (p = 0.01) and larger (p = 0.003) than other trials. The trials planning an economic evaluation had a mean of 6.5 (range 2.7-13.2) years since the trial end in which to publish their results. Effectiveness results were reported by 70 %, while only 43 % published economic evaluations (p < 0.001). Reasons for non-publication of economic results included the intervention being ineffective, and staffing issues. Funding source, time since trial end and length of study were not associated with a higher probability of publishing the economic evaluation. However, studies that were small or of unknown size were significantly less likely to publish economic evaluations than large studies (p < 0.001). The authors' confidence in labelling one intervention clearly most effective did not affect the probability of publication. The mean time to publication was 0.7 years longer for cost-effectiveness data than for effectiveness data where both were published (p = 0.001). The median journal impact factor was 1.6 points higher for effectiveness publications than for the corresponding economic publications (p = 0.01). Reasons for publishing in different journals included editorial decision making and the additional time that economic evaluation takes to conduct.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials that intend to conduct an economic analysis are less likely to report economic data than effectiveness data. Where economic results do appear, they are published later, and in journals with lower impact factors. These results suggest that economic output may be more susceptible than effectiveness data to publication bias. Funders, grant reviewers and trialists themselves should ensure economic evaluations are prioritized and adequately staffed to avoid potential problems with bias.

Registration of noncommercial randomised clinical trials: the feasibility of using trial registries to monitor the number of trials

Background

A 2003 survey suggested the number of noncommercial trials in the UK was declining. Formation of the NIHR in 2006 and increased research spending by the Department of Health may have increased the number of noncommercial trials but no data are available.

Methods

Available data on UK noncommercial trials (were obtained from the two relevant registries: ISRCTN register for the UK, and US ClinicalTrials.gov. Data on each trial were sorted by start year, and compared with the: 2003 survey, and UKCRN portfolio database from 2007.

Results

The number of UK noncommercial trials registered rose from 25 in 1990 to 188 in 1999, peaked at 533 in 2003, and fell back to 334 in 2009. Total trials registered was similar to but slightly above those in the 2003 survey up to 1998, then rose sharply to 2002 before falling to 2007. From 2007 to 2009 the number registered to start each year was similar to but slightly above the UKCRN database. Less than 10% of UK noncommercial trials registered with ClinGov for most years before 2005, but this rose to 35% by 2009.

Conclusions

For the periods of overlap, trial registration data provide fairly similar totals to other sources on the number of noncommercial trials starting each year. The rise and fall in the number of trials registered between 1999 and 2007 was due to those registered in the ISRCTN database as funded by NHS Trusts. After 2007, the number of trials registered as funded by NHS Trusts has fallen in the ISRCTN register but these trials may have migrated to the US ClinGov register. The total number of noncommercial trial starts, excluding those funded by NHS Trusts, has been upward since around 2002. By 2009 the two main funders were NIHR and charities. Feasibility of using registration data to monitor the number of noncommercial trials has been demonstrated but is complicated by the use of two registers and difficulties in accessing the data. We recommend an annual report on the number of noncommercial trials registering each year.

Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals

Background

There is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature.

Methods and Results

We reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers that adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available.

Conclusion

A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement.