From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials

An analysis of deficiencies in the ethics committee data of certain interventional trials registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India

There is widespread agreement that clinical trials should be registered in a public registry, preferably before the trial commences. It is also important that details of each trial in the public record are complete and accurate. In this study, we examined the trial sites and ethics committee (EC) data for 1359 recent Phase 2 or Phase 3 interventional trials registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI), to identify categories of problems that prevent the clear identification of which EC approved a given site. We created an SQLite database that hosted the relevant CTRI records, and queried this database, as needed. We identified two broad categories of problems: those pertaining to the understanding of an individual trial and those to adopting a data analytics approach for a large number of trials. Overall, about 30 problems were identified, such as an EC not being listed; an uninformative name of the EC that precluded its clear identification; ambiguity in which EC supervised a particular site; repetition of a site or an EC; the use of a given acronym for different organizations; site name not clearly listed, etc. The large number of problems with the data in the EC or site field creates a challenge to link particular sites with particular ECs, especially if a programme is used to find the matches. We make a few suggestions on how the situation could be improved. Most importantly, list the EC registration number for each EC, merge the site and EC tables so that it is clear which EC is linked to which site; and implement logic rules that would prevent a trial from being registered unless certain conditions were met. This will raise user confidence in CTRI EC data, and enable data based public policy and inferences. This will also contribute to increased transparency, and trust, in clinical trials, and their oversight, in India.

Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

To characterise and analyse the experiences of trial researchers of if and how conflicts of interest had unduly influenced clinical trials they had worked on, what management strategies they had used to minimise any potential influence, and their experiences and views on conflicts of interest more generally.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

PARTICIPANTS

Trial researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials with methodological or statistical expertise. Researchers differed by geographical location, educational background, and experience with different types of funders. Interviewees were identified by searches on Web of Science and snowball sampling. 52 trial researchers were approached by email; 20 agreed to be interviewed.

SETTING

Interviews conducted by telephone, recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported to NVivo 12, and analysed by systematic text condensation. Semistructured interviews focused on financial and non-financial conflicts of interest.

RESULTS

The interviewees had participated in a median of 37.5 trials and were mainly male physicians who had experience with commercial and non-commercial trial funders. Two predefined themes (influence of conflicts of interest and management strategies) and two additional themes (definition and reporting of conflicts of interest) emerged. Examples of perceived influence of conflicts of interest were: choice of inferior comparator, manipulation of the randomisation process, prematurely stopping the trials, fabrication of data, blocking access to data, and spin (eg, overly favourable interpretation of the results). Examples of strategies to manage conflicts of interest were: disclosure procedures, exclusion of the funder from design and analysis, independent committees, contracts ensuring complete access to the data, and no restriction by the funder on analysis and reporting. Interviewees used different definitions or thresholds for what they considered to be conflicts of interest, and they described different criteria for when to report them. Some interviewees considered non-commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding of trials by governmental health agencies with a political agenda) to be equally or more important than commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding by drug and device companies), but more challenging to report and manage.

CONCLUSION

This study described how trial researchers perceive conflicts of interest unduly influencing clinical trials they had worked on, and the management strategies they used to prevent these influences. The results indicated considerable variability in researchers' understanding of what conflicts of interest are and when they should be reported.

From registration to publication: A study on Dutch academic randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Registration of clinical trials has been initiated in order to assess adherence of the reported results to the original trial protocol. This study aimed to investigate the publication rates, timely dissemination of results, and the prevalence of consistency in hypothesis, sample size, and primary endpoint of Dutch investigator-initiated randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

All Dutch investigator-initiated RCTs with a completion date between December 31, 2010, and January 1, 2012, and registered in the Trial Register of The Netherlands database were included. PubMed was searched for the publication of these RCT results until September 2016, and the time to the publication date was calculated. Consistency in hypothesis, sample size, and primary endpoint compared with the registry data were assessed.

RESULTS

The search resulted in a total of 168 Dutch investigator-initiated RCTs. In September 2016, the results of 129 (77%) trials had been published, of which 50 (39%) within 2 years after completion of accrual. Consistency in hypothesis with the original protocol was observed in 108 (84%) RCTs; in 71 trials (55%), the planned sample size was reached; and 103 trials (80%) presented the original primary endpoint. Consistency in all three parameters was observed in 50 studies (39%).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that approximately one out of four Dutch investigator-initiated RCTs remains unpublished 5 years after initiation. The observed low overall consistency with the initial study outline is a matter of concern and warrants improvements in trial design and assessment of trial feasibility.

The Conduct and Reporting of Child Health Research: An Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2012 and Evaluation of Change over 5 Years

OBJECTIVES

For child health randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2012, we aimed to describe design and reporting characteristics and evaluate changes since 2007; assess the association between trial design and registration and risk of bias (RoB); and assess the association between RoB and effect size.

STUDY DESIGN

For 300 RCTs, we extracted design and reporting characteristics and assessed RoB. We assessed 5-year changes in design and reporting (based on 300 RCTs we had previously analyzed) using the Fisher exact test. We tested for associations between design and reporting characteristics and overall RoB and registration using the Fisher exact, Cochran-Armitage, Kruskal-Wallis, and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests. We pooled effect sizes and tested for differences by RoB using the χ² test for subgroups in meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The 2012 and 2007 RCTs differed with respect to many design and reporting characteristics. From 2007 to 2012, RoB did not change for random sequence generation and improved for allocation concealment (P < .001). Fewer 2012 RCTs were rated high overall RoB and more were rated unclear (P = .03). Only 7.3% of 2012 RCTs were rated low overall RoB. Trial registration doubled from 2007 to 2012 (23% to 46%) (P < .001) and was associated with lower RoB (P = .009). Effect size did not differ by RoB (P = .43) CONCLUSIONS: Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not often reported, and selective reporting was prevalent. Measures to increase trialists' awareness and application of existing reporting guidance, and the prospective registration of RCTs is needed to improve the trustworthiness of findings from this field.

Do clinical trials reflect reality? A systematic review of inclusion/exclusion criteria in trials of renal transplant immunosuppression

Renal transplant recipients and donors are becoming increasingly more marginal, with more expanded criteria (ECD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and older recipients. Despite this, high-risk donors and recipients are often excluded from clinical trials, leading to uncertainty about the generalizability of findings. We extracted data regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria from 174 trials of immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients published over a 5-year period and compared criteria with those specified in published trial registries. Frequently reported donor exclusion criteria were age (16.1%), donor type and cold ischaemic time (22.4%). Common recipient exclusion criteria included upper age limit (38.5%), high panel reactive antibody (PRA) (42.5%) and previous transplantation (39.7%). Inclusion/exclusion criteria recorded in trial registries matched those reported in the manuscript in only 6 (7.8%) trials. Of registered trials, 51 (66.2%) trials included additional criteria in the manuscript, 51 (66.2%) were missing criteria in the manuscript specified in the protocol, and in 19 (24.7%) key criteria changed from the protocol to the manuscript. Our findings suggest many recent immunosuppression trials have restrictive inclusion criteria which may not be reflective of current renal transplant populations. Discrepancies between trial protocols and published reports raise the possibility of selection bias.

Publication trends of study protocols in rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

Growing evidence points for the need to publish study protocols in the health field. The aim of this paper was to observe whether the growing interest in publishing study protocols in the broader health field has been translated into increased publications of rehabilitation study protocols.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed was searched with appropriate combinations of Medical Subject Headings up to December 2014. The effective presence of study protocols was manually screened. Regression models analyzed the yearly growth of publications. Two-sample Z-tests analyzed whether the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among study protocols differed from that of the same designs for the broader rehabilitation research.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Up to December 2014, 746 publications of rehabilitation study protocols were identified, with an exponential growth since 2005 (r2=0.981; P<0.001). RCT protocols were the most common among rehabilitation study protocols (83%), while RCTs were significantly more prevalent among study protocols than among the broader rehabilitation research (83% vs. 35.8%; P<0.001). For SRs, the picture was reversed: significantly less common among study protocols (2.8% vs. 9.3%; P<0.001). Funding was more often reported by rehabilitation study protocols than the broader rehabilitation research (90% vs. 53.1%; P<0.001). Rehabilitation journals published a significantly lower share of rehabilitation study protocols than they did for the broader rehabilitation research (1.8% vs.16.7%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the reasons for these discrepancies and reverting unwarranted disparities (e.g. low rate of publication for rehabilitation SR protocols) are likely new avenues for rehabilitation research and its publication. SRs, particularly those aggregating RCT results, are considered the best standard of evidence to guide rehabilitation clinical practice; however, that standard can be improved in rigor and/or transparency if the publications of rehabilitation SRs protocols become more common.

A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine

Objective

To evaluate the quality of the veterinary literature investigating IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle.

Design

Systematic review.

Procedures

The preferred reporting of items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) was employed for systematic review of all relevant IV fluid therapy manuscripts published from January 1969 through December 2016 in the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) database. Independent grading systems used to evaluate manuscripts included the updated CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2012 checklist, risk of bias for animal intervention studies, criteria for levels of evidence, and methodological quality (Jadad scale). The quality of articles published before and after 2010 was compared.

Results

One hundred and thirty-nine articles (63 dogs, 7 cats, 39 horses, 30 cattle) from 7,258 met the inclusion criteria. More than 50% of the manuscripts did not comply with minimal requirements for reporting randomized controlled trials. The most non-compliant items included identification of specific predefined objectives or a hypothesis, identification of trial design, how sample size was determined, randomization, and blinding procedures. Most studies were underpowered and at risk for selection, performance, and detection bias. The overall quality of the articles improved for articles published after 2010.

Conclusion and clinical relevance

Most of the veterinary literature investigating the administration of IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle is descriptive, does not comply with standards for evidence, or provide adequate translation to clinical practice. Authors should employ and journal editors should enforce international consensus recommendations and guidelines for publication of data from animal experiments investigating IV fluid therapy.

Primary endpoint discrepancies were found in one in ten clinical drug trials. Results of an inception cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To identify the occurrence and determinants of protocol-publication discrepancies in clinical drug trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

All published clinical drug trials reviewed by the Dutch institutional review boards in 2007 were analyzed. Discrepancies between trial protocols and publications were measured among key reporting aspects. We evaluated the association of trial characteristics with discrepancies in primary endpoints by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Of the 334 published trials, 32 (9.6%) had a protocol/publication discrepancy in the primary endpoints. Among the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; N = 204), 12 (5.9%) had a discrepancy in the primary endpoint. Investigator-initiated trials with and without industry (co-) funding were associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints compared with industry-sponsored trials (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.4-9.9 and RR 4.4; 95% CI 2.0-9.5, respectively). Furthermore, other than phase 1-4 trials (vs. phase 1; RR 4.6; 95% CI 1.1-19.3), multicenter trials were also conducted outside the European Union (vs. single center; RR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1-0.6), not prospectively registered trials (RR 3.3; 95% CI 1.5-7.5), non-RCTs (vs. superiority RCT; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2-4.8) and, among the RCTs, crossover compared with a parallel group design (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.1-12.3) were significantly associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in completeness of reporting is still needed, especially among investigator-initiated trials and non-RCTs. To eliminate undisclosed discrepancies, trial protocols should be available in the public domain at the same time when the trial is published.

Review and publication of protocol submissions to Trials - what have we learned in 10 years?

Trials has 10 years of experience in providing open access publication of protocols for randomised controlled trials. In this editorial, the senior editors and editors-in-chief of Trials discuss editorial issues regarding managing trial protocol submissions, including the content and format of the protocol, timing of submission, approaches to tracking protocol amendments, and the purpose of peer reviewing a protocol submission. With the clarification and guidance provided, we hope we can make the process of publishing trial protocols more efficient and useful to trial investigators and readers.