Vassar M, Roberts W, Cooper CM, Wayant C, Bibens M. Evaluation of selective outcome reporting and trial registration practices among addiction clinical trials.
Addiction 2020;
115:1172-1179. [PMID:
31743532 DOI:
10.1111/add.14902]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2019] [Revised: 06/28/2019] [Accepted: 11/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Selective outcome reporting occurs when trialists pre-specify primary and secondary outcomes during trial planning but alter the definitions in the published report. Here, we investigate selective outcome reporting in published addiction randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate whether particular funding sources are associated with an increased likelihood of selective outcome reporting.
DESIGN
We conducted a cross-sectional study of published addiction clinical trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify RCTs in addiction journals from 2013 to 2017. Included studies used a randomized design to address one of the following topics: (1) drug, alcohol and tobacco addiction prevention, (2) stabilization following excessive use of a substance, (3) relapse prevention or (4) recovery maintenance.
SETTING
Single-center, medical research institution.
PARTICIPANTS
Our sample included 162 RCTs that were prospectively registered with a clearly defined primary outcome.
MEASUREMENT
We extracted the following items from addiction RCTs: journal, funding source, trial registry number (if included), sample size, dates of subject enrollment, whether primary and secondary outcomes were denoted, all published outcomes, P-value for all outcomes and whether authors mentioned any deviations from the trial protocol as it related to RCT outcomes.
FINDINGS
In total, 47 of 162 RCTs (29.0%) had at least one major discrepancy between the trial registry and published RCT. Overall, these 47 RCTs included 54 major discrepancies. The most common major discrepancy was demotion of a primary registered outcome (19/54, 35.2%). The majority of RCTs (132/162, 81.5%) were funded from public sources. Additionally, 166 RCTs were excluded from our sample because registration could not be confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence suggestive of selective outcome reporting in addiction randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most common major discrepancies pertained to the primary outcome.
Collapse