Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

Discontinuation and nonpublication of nasopharyngeal carcinoma clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent of research waste in the field of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we explored the rates, causes and predictors of discontinuation and nonpublication of NPC clinical trials. The sample was derived using the ClinicalTrials.gov advanced search function. Adjusted logistic regression was used to ascertain the effect of trial characteristics on completion and publication status. If a trial discontinuation explanation or publication status could not be determined through the systematic search, the corresponding author was emailed.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 311 NPC clinical trials were included (255 [82.0 %] completed and 56 [18.0 %] discontinued trials). The most common reason for trial discontinuation was poor accrual (50 %, 23/46). Industry funding (adjusted OR, 3.12; P = 0.003) and recurrent/metastatic setting (adjusted OR, 11.95; P = 0.003) were significantly associated with increased likelihood of trial discontinuation. Of the 207 completed trials included in the publication query, 141 (68.1 %) were published in peer-reviewed journals, 10 (4.8 %) had results only available on ClinicalTrials.gov, and 56 (27.1 %) remained unpublished 3 or more years after trial completion. Radiation with or without pharmacologic interventions significantly increased the potential of publication (adjusted OR, 3.20; P = 0.048). Among published trials, the median time to publication was 28.47 months (interquartile range, 15.27-44.98 months).

CONCLUSION

We identified the difficulties inherent in NPC clinical trials from completion to publication. This represents considerable research waste in NPC, thus raising ethical concerns about the concealment of clinical data and futile patient participation and attendant risks.

Frequency of multiple changes to prespecified primary outcomes of clinical trials completed between 2009 and 2017 in German university medical centers: A meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial registries allow assessment of deviations of published trials from their protocol, which may indicate a considerable risk of bias. However, since entries in many registries can be updated at any time, deviations may go unnoticed. We aimed to assess the frequency of changes to primary outcomes in different historical versions of registry entries, and how often they would go unnoticed if only deviations between published trial reports and the most recent registry entry are assessed.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We analyzed the complete history of changes of registry entries in all 1746 randomized controlled trials completed at German university medical centers between 2009 and 2017, with published results up to 2022, that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German WHO primary registry (German Clinical Trials Register; DRKS). Data were retrieved on 24 January 2022. We assessed deviations between registry entries and publications in a random subsample of 292 trials. We determined changes of primary outcomes (1) between different versions of registry entries at key trial milestones, (2) between the latest registry entry version and the results publication, and (3) changes that occurred after trial start with no change between latest registry entry version and publication (so that assessing the full history of changes is required for detection of changes). We categorized changes as major if primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. We also assessed (4) the proportion of publications transparently reporting changes and (5) characteristics associated with changes. Of all 1746 trials, 23% (n = 393) had a primary outcome change between trial start and latest registry entry version, with 8% (n = 142) being major changes, that is, primary outcomes were added, dropped, changed to secondary outcomes, or secondary outcomes were turned into primary outcomes. Primary outcomes in publications were different from the latest registry entry version in 41% of trials (120 of the 292 sampled trials; 95% confidence interval (CI) [35%, 47%]), with major changes in 18% (54 of 292; 95% CI [14%, 23%]). Overall, 55% of trials (161 of 292; 95% CI [49%, 61%]) had primary outcome changes at any timepoint over the course of a trial, with 23% of trials (67 of 292; 95% CI [18%, 28%]) having major changes. Changes only within registry records, with no apparent discrepancy between latest registry entry version and publication, were observed in 14% of trials (41 of 292; 95% CI [10%, 19%]), with 4% (13 of 292; 95% CI [2%, 7%]) being major changes. One percent of trials with a change reported this in their publication (2 of 161 trials; 95% CI [0%, 4%]). An exploratory logistic regression analysis indicated that trials were less likely to have a discrepant registry entry if they were registered more recently (odds ratio (OR) 0.74; 95% CI [0.69, 0.80]; p<0.001), were not registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (OR 0.41; 95% CI [0.23, 0.70]; p = 0.002), or were not industry-sponsored (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.21, 0.41]; p<0.001). Key limitations include some degree of subjectivity in the categorization of outcome changes and inclusion of a single geographic region.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that changes to primary outcomes occur in 55% of trials, with 23% trials having major changes. They are rarely transparently reported in the results publication and often not visible in the latest registry entry version. More transparency is needed, supported by deeper analysis of registry entries to make these changes more easily recognizable. Protocol registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/t3qva; amendment in https://osf.io/qtd2b).

Evidence of publication bias in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a comparative analysis of published and unpublished studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Complete and timely publication of clinical trials ensures that patients and the medical community are fully informed when making treatment decisions. The aim of this study is to assess the publication of phase III and IV clinical trials on multiple sclerosis (MS) drugs that have been carried out between 2010 and 2019 and to identify the factors associated with their publication in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

An advanced search in ClinicalTrials.gov was performed and consecutive searches in PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar were conducted looking for the associated publications of all completed trials. Study design characteristics, results and other relevant information were extracted. Data was analysed following a case-control design. Clinical trials with associated publications in peer-reviewed journals were the cases and unpublished trials were the controls. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with trial publication.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty clinical trials were included in the analysis. Ninety-six of them (64.0%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with trial publication were a favourable primary outcome (OR 12.49, 95% CI 1.28 to 122.29) and reaching the originally estimated sample size (OR 41.97, 95% CI 1.96 to 900.48), while those associated with a lower odds of publication were having 20% or more patients lost to follow-up (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52) and evaluating drugs intended to improve treatment tolerability (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Phase III and IV clinical trials on MS drugs are prone to under-reporting and publication bias. Efforts must be made to promote a complete and accurate dissemination of data in MS clinical research.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Availability of results of academic randomized trials involving cooperative groups in oncology in France: A systematic search of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Cooperative groups' involvement is increasing in academic oncological research. We aimed to assess the impact of sponsoring by cooperative groups in France on the availability of results of academic randomized trials in oncology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Clinical Trials Register. We searched for all academic randomized trials in oncology conducted in France between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2015. The inclusion criteria were: completed or terminated, phase 2 or 3 randomized trials with an academic (non-industry) sponsor. The main outcome was the publication of the results of trial (either as a journal article or as posting results in a registry) across each type of sponsor.

RESULTS

We included 211 randomized trials, mainly phase 3 (n = 135, 64%) and evaluating pharmacological treatments (n = 149, 71%). French cooperative groups were involved in 69 trials (33%), as part of a collaboration in one third (n = 23) of instances. Seventy-one (34%) trials were run by oncologic hospitals, 50 (23%) by university hospitals, and 21 (10%) by European organizations. Seventy-seven randomized trials (36%) had available results (published n = 73, posted n = 6). Cooperative groups were involved in half of those that have been published (37/73). The cumulative probability of results availability was 57% for cooperative groups, 41% for European organizations, 32% for oncologic hospitals, and 17% for university hospital at 10 years from the beginning of trials (p = 0.0006). In the case of collaboration with cooperative groups, the cumulative probability of results availability achieved 59% for university hospitals and 74% for oncologic hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The availability of results of randomized trials in oncology remains limited and almost exclusively through publications, but is higher when cooperative groups are involved.

POLICY SUMMARY

Sponsoring by a cooperative group should become the rule in academic trials to increase availability of trial results.

DIet and Health From reGIstered Trials on ClinicalTrials.gov: The DIGIT Study

Background

Clinical trial registration has become a valuable tool that can be used to track the status and nature of trials conducted on a specific topic. This approach has been applied to many areas of research, but less is known about the characteristics and trends over time of clinical trials focused on diet and health. The aim of this study was to analyze diet-related clinical trials registered on the National Institute of Health “ClinicalTrials.gov” web platform in the last 10 years, to list and describe their characteristics, and to identify possible gaps to be filled in the future research.

Methods

A search was performed on the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Intervention studies registered from January 2010 to December 2020, conducted on adults, with a follow-up of ≥2 weeks, evaluating the impact of different diets on all outcomes except those assessed with scales or questionnaires were considered.

Results

At the end of the selection process, a total of 1,016 registered clinical trials were identified and included in the analysis. The most investigated dietary approaches were balanced diets (n = 381 trials), followed by those based on a modification of macronutrients (n = 288) and time-restricted feeding and intermittent fasting diets (n = 140). The main measured outcomes included anthropometric parameters and body composition (57.8%), glycemic control parameters (49.7%), lipid parameters (40.1%), inflammatory markers (29.1%), and blood pressure and/or heart rate (24.5%). A growing body of studies also focused on microbiota and host metabolism (17.8%). Most studies had a duration of less than 12 weeks (~60%), and more than 90% of studies enrolled volunteers with overweight/obesity or other diseases. Regarding aging, only 21 studies focused only on older adults.

Conclusion

The number of studies investigating the relationship between diet and health has increased over the years. Despite the growing interest in the topic, there are some gaps, such as the limited duration of most trials, the underrepresentation of some population groups, and the limited number of studies for some diets that, although popular in the population, lack robust scientific evidence.

Identifying unreported links between ClinicalTrials.gov trial registrations and their published results

A substantial proportion of trial registrations are not linked to corresponding published articles, limiting analyses and new tools. Our aim was to develop a method for finding articles reporting the results of trials that are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov when they do not include metadata links. We used a set of 27,280 trial registration and article pairs to train and evaluate methods for identifying missing links in both directions-from articles to registrations and from registrations to articles. We trained a classifier with six distance metrics as feature representations to rank the correct article or registration, using recall@K to evaluate performance and compare to baseline methods. When identifying links from registrations to published articles, the classifier ranked the correct article first (recall@1) among 378,048 articles in 80.8% of evaluation cases and 34.9% in the baseline method. Recall@10 was 85.1% compared to 60.7% in the baseline. When predicting links from articles to registrations, recall@1 was 83.4% for the classifier and 39.8% in the baseline. Recall@10 was 89.5% compared to 65.8% in the baseline. The proposed method improves on our baseline document similarity method to be feasible for identifying missing links in practice. Given a ClinicalTrials.gov registration, a user checking 10 ranked articles can expect to identify the matching article in at least 85% of cases, if the trial has been published. The proposed method can be used to improve the coupling of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed, with applications related to automating systematic review and evidence synthesis processes.

Review of disease-modifying drug trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

We analysed clinical trials of pharmacological interventions on patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and compared study quality and design features. The systematic review included articles published in PubMed and trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Included studies were randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing a disease-modifying pharmacological intervention. Studies were excluded if primary end points were safety or dose finding. A total of 28 735 articles and 721 current trials were identified. 76 published articles and 23 ongoing trials met inclusion criteria; they referred to distinct populations comprising 22 817 participants with ALS. Most articles and all current trials had parallel group design; few articles had cross-over design. A run-in observation period was included in about 20% of published studies and ongoing trials. Primary end points included functional assessment, survival, muscle strength, respiratory function, biomarkers and composite measures. Most recent trials had only functional assessment and survival. Risk of bias was high in 23 articles, moderate in 35, low in 18. A disease modification effect was observed for 10 interventions in phase II studies, two of which were confirmed in phase III. Three confirmatory phase III studies are currently underway. The present review provides cues for the design of future trials. Functional decline and survival, as single or composite measures, stand as the reference end points. Post hoc analyses should not be performed, particularly in studies using composite end points. There is a general agreement on diagnostic criteria; but eligibility criteria must be improved. Run-in observations may be used for censoring patients but are discouraged for refining participants' eligibility. The ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised needs improvement for use as an ordinal measure of functional decline.

The Landscape of Acute Pancreatitis Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: A Cross-sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

Clinical studies are important in informing evidence-based practice for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). To determine whether registered studies adequately meet this need, we leveraged the ClinicalTrials.gov database to provide an overview of studies pertaining to AP.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched and the search term used was AP. Analysis was restricted to studies registered before January 12, 2021.

RESULTS

Of 363,632 trials overall, 234 (0.06%) were eventually included for analysis. Interventional studies and observational studies comprised 67.5% and 32.5% of these studies respectively. Most studies were initiated 2007 or later. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was the single most frequent cause of AP specified in these studies (16.7%). Nearly 72% of these studies had a sample size greater than 50. With respect to study design, 87.3% of interventional studies were randomized, 53.5% were blinded. The top 3 countries with the largest number of registered studies were China (n = 59), followed by the United States (n = 53) and India (n = 12).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the research activity falls short of what is needed in terms of the burden of AP. The distribution of these AP-related studies by global regions indicates that there exists regional disparities.

Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health

Outcome reporting bias is one of the fundamental forms of publication bias. It implies publishing only outcomes that have positive results. The aim of this observational study was to explore primary outcome discrepancies between registry of clinical trials and their corresponding publications, since these can indicate outcome reporting bias in child mental health. Data were extracted from completed interventional clinical trials from ClinicalTrial.gov registry and its Archive site. Trials were registered under "Behaviours and Mental Disorders" category, and conducted on underage participants (0-17 years). Their primary outcomes were compared to those published in publication which had a corresponding NCT number stated in the text. Sixteen percent of trials did not have the minimum information on primary outcome stated in the registry-neither the measure used nor the measurement time points; 38.9% of trials had the minimum information stated to describe primary outcome, while only 3.3% of trials had all the necessary elements stated in the registry. Most of the publication in our sample had positive results (66.4%). Half of the trials registered before completion had non-matching primary outcomes in the registry and publication; 85.4% of trials with non-matching outcomes indicated possible outcome reporting bias for some of the primary outcome. Middle-sized trials and industry-funded trials were related with higher quality of primary outcome registration. Industry funding was related with positive findings in publication. Non-industry funding proved to be the only significant predictor of discrepancy between registered and published primary outcomes, and possible outcome reporting bias. Journal impact factor was not related with any of the outcome measures. The main limitation of the study is that it primarily offers an insight into discrepancy of registered and published outcomes. The methodology does not imply an access to results of unpublished outcomes - therefore, it was not possible to determine the presence of the bias with sufficient certainty in large number of trials. Further research should be done with improved methodology and additional data.

Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class

Importance

Although quality of life (QOL) is an important clinical end point, cancer drugs are often approved based on overall survival (OS) or putative surrogate end points such as progression-free survival (PFS) without QOL data.

Objective

To ascertain whether cancer drug trials that show improvement in OS or PFS also improve global QOL of patients with cancer compared with the control treatment, as well as to assess how unchanged or detrimental QOL outcomes are reported in trial publications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included all patients with cancer in the advanced setting who were enrolled into phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs reporting QOL data and published in English language in a PubMed-indexed journal in the calendar year 2019. The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in July 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association of QOL outcomes with OS and PFS, framing of unchanged QOL outcomes in trial publications, and the association of favorable framing with industry funding of the trials.

Results

A total of 45 phase 3 RCTs enrolling 24 806 participants (13 368 in the experimental arm and 11 438 in the control arm) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study analyses. Improvement in global QOL with the experimental agent was reported in 11 (24%) RCTs. The RCTs with improved QOL were more likely to also show improved OS vs trials with unimproved QOL (7 of 11 [64%] trials vs 10 of 34 [29%] trials; χ2 = 4.13; P = .04); there was no such association observed for PFS (6 of 11 [55%] trials vs 17 of 34 [50%] trials, χ2 = 0.03; P = .87). Six trials reported worsening QOL, of which 3 (50%) were trials of targeted drugs, and 11 trials reported improvement in QOL, of which 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Of the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, 16 (47%) reported these results in a positive frame, an observation statistically significantly associated with industry funding (χ2 = 6.35; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, a small proportion of RCTs of cancer drugs showed benefit in global QOL with the experimental agent. These results showed an association between QOL benefit and OS benefit but no such association with PFS benefit. Trials that failed to show improved QOL often reported their QOL outcomes more favorably. Non-immunotherapy-targeted drugs led to worse QOL more often than did cytotoxic agents.

The Impact of Industry Funding on Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Therapies

Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ² = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ² = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.

Is there resource wastage in the research for spinal diseases? An observational analysis of discontinuation and non-publication in randomised controlled trials

Introduction

The scale of waste in research funding systems is large and detrimental to research capacity. Both incompleteness and non-publication of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been increasingly reported in the literature. This is a serious consequence as RCTs demand monumental amounts of healthcare resources leading to wastage. Most importantly, both under-reporting and non-publication can distort the evidence landscape and obscure rationale behind clinical decisions.

Research question

We, therefore, aimed at conducting the first systematic assessment of registered trial discontinuation and non-publication in the field of spinal disorders.

Material and methods

A list of RCTs was obtained from the U.S National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov database from January 1st, 2013, to December 31st, 2020. Two independent authors excluded all non-RCTs, trials unrelated to spinal diseases, and trials that are in or before the recruitment phase. We extracted the progress status, sources of funding, the number of centres, type of intervention, principal investigator's department affiliation, publication status, location, the reason for discontinuation, publication date, and subtopics.

Results

112 trials were included in the study. 25 (22%) trials were discontinued early, with slow recruitment being the major reason (38%). Only 56 (50%) of the trials were published in peer-reviewed journals. The publication rate amongst discontinued trials was significantly lower compared to completed trials (P ​< ​0·001). The trial discontinuation rate was much higher in trials registered in the United States (US) compared to other countries (P ​= ​0·009). Industry-sponsored studies had 11 trials (23·4%) that were discontinued whilst there was 20% of non-industry-sponsored studies that were unfinished. Only 20% of the trials were compliant with the FDA reporting requirements over the study period.

Discussion and conclusion

Nearly a quarter of all trials in spinal disorders were discontinued. Half of the trials were unpublished. There was over a third of trials that were completed but not published. These rates remain worrisome from an ethical and financial perspective. Both under-reporting and non-publication adversely affect efforts in evidence synthesis and can compromise clinical guideline development.

•

Nearly a quarter of all trials in spinal disorders were discontinued early.

•

Only half of the trials were published in peer-reviewed journals.

•

Over a third of the trials were completed but not published.

•

The rates of trial discontinuation and non-publication are worrisome from an ethical and financial perspective.

•

Both under-reporting and non-publication adversely affect efforts in evidence synthesis and can compromise clinical guideline development.

The automation of relevant trial registration screening for systematic review updates: an evaluation study on a large dataset of ClinicalTrials.gov registrations

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial registries can be used as sources of clinical evidence for systematic review synthesis and updating. Our aim was to evaluate methods for identifying clinical trial registrations that should be screened for inclusion in updates of published systematic reviews.

METHODS

A set of 4644 clinical trial registrations (ClinicalTrials.gov) included in 1089 systematic reviews (PubMed) were used to evaluate two methods (document similarity and hierarchical clustering) and representations (L2-normalised TF-IDF, Latent Dirichlet Allocation, and Doc2Vec) for ranking 163,501 completed clinical trials by relevance. Clinical trial registrations were ranked for each systematic review using seeding clinical trials, simulating how new relevant clinical trials could be automatically identified for an update. Performance was measured by the number of clinical trials that need to be screened to identify all relevant clinical trials.

RESULTS

Using the document similarity method with TF-IDF feature representation and Euclidean distance metric, all relevant clinical trials for half of the systematic reviews were identified after screening 99 trials (IQR 19 to 491). The best-performing hierarchical clustering was using Ward agglomerative clustering (with TF-IDF representation and Euclidean distance) and needed to screen 501 clinical trials (IQR 43 to 4363) to achieve the same result.

CONCLUSION

An evaluation using a large set of mined links between published systematic reviews and clinical trial registrations showed that document similarity outperformed hierarchical clustering for identifying relevant clinical trials to include in systematic review updates.

Comparison of Publication of Pediatric Probiotic vs Antibiotic Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

IMPORTANCE

The published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Probiotic or antibiotic.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.

Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should expect routine success in it. This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function.

Association of Pharmacological Interventions With Symptom Burden Reduction in Patients With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

Importance

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is experienced by 55.9 million people globally each year. The symptoms of mild TBI are diverse and sometimes long-lasting, requiring frequent use of pharmacological interventions to mitigate them. A thorough understanding of the data supporting pharmacological interventions is important for decision-making among clinicians treating this common injury.

Objective

To systematically review studies of pharmacological interventions and their associations with symptom burden reduction among patients with mild TBI and to use an evidence-based model to identify potential directions for future research that may aid in clinical decision-making.

Evidence Review

A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search strings modified for the advanced search interfaces of each search engine were developed in consultation with a librarian and included combinations of search terms, such as brain concussion, post-concussion syndrome, mild traumatic brain injury, and pharmacological treatment. Articles published between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2020, were analyzed. Studies were included if (1) they were clinical studies with discrete analyses of participants with mild TBI or complicated mild TBI, (2) they were assessments of a pharmacological intervention, (3) they included human participants, and (4) they were published in a peer-reviewed journal in the English language. Studies were excluded if the severity of TBI among participants could not be ascertained (ie, inadequate definition of mild TBI) and the inclusion criteria for the study required intracranial hemorrhage. A total of 23 studies examining 20 pharmacological interventions met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for Randomized Trials (for randomized clinical trials) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (for all other studies). Data were analyzed from June to September 2020.

Findings

A total of 1495 articles were identified; of those, 131 articles were excluded as duplicates. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria among the remaining 1364 articles, and 134 of those articles received a full-text review. After exclusions, 23 studies (11 randomized clinical trials, 7 prospective observational studies, 3 retrospective observational studies, and 2 case studies) examining 20 pharmacological interventions were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. Studies included 22 distinct participant populations comprising 8277 participants with mild TBI and 45 participants without TBI. Among 23 total studies, 8 studies specifically addressed the pediatric population, 9 studies had a low risk of bias, and 16 studies reported symptom burden reduction. Of the 20 pharmacological interventions examined in the studies, methylphenidate, sertraline hydrochloride, ondansetron, amitriptyline, and melatonin were the only medications included in multiple studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review found a limited number of high-quality, clinically meaningful studies, particularly among children and individuals in the acute stage of injury; therefore, performing an evidence-based analysis that would inform clinical decision-making was not possible. Future studies are needed to focus on standardizing measures and increasing sample sizes (including large multicenter clinical trials) to generate a body of research that may provide additional options for the treatment of patients with mild TBI.

Investigator-initiated Randomized Controlled Trials in Infectious Diseases: Better Value for Money for Registration Trials of New Antimicrobials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by the industry are expensive, especially trials conducted for registration of new drugs for multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. Lower-cost investigator-initiated trials have recently been successful in recruiting patients with severe infections caused by MDR bacteria. In this viewpoint, we contrast the aims, methods, and resulting costs of industry-led and investigator-initiated trials and ask whether contemporary registration trial costs are justified. Contract research organizations, delivering and monitoring industry-sponsored trials at a significant cost, have little incentive to make trials more efficient or less expensive. The value of universal monitoring of all trial data is questionable. We propose that clinical trial networks play a more influential role in RCT design and planning, lead adaptive risk-based trial monitoring, and work with the industry to maximize efficient recruitment and lower costs in registration trials for the approval of new antimicrobials.

Making ERP research more transparent: Guidelines for preregistration

A combination of confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and pressure to publish may prompt the (unconscious) exploration of various methodological options and reporting only the ones that lead to a (statistically) significant outcome. This undisclosed analytic flexibility is particularly relevant in EEG research, where a myriad of preprocessing and analysis pipelines can be used to extract information from complex multidimensional data. One solution to limit confirmation and hindsight bias by disclosing analytic choices is preregistration: researchers write a time-stamped, publicly accessible research plan with hypotheses, data collection plan, and the intended preprocessing and statistical analyses before the start of a research project. In this manuscript, we present an overview of the problems associated with undisclosed analytic flexibility, discuss why and how EEG researchers would benefit from adopting preregistration, provide guidelines and examples on how to preregister data preprocessing and analysis steps in typical ERP studies, and conclude by discussing possibilities and limitations of this open science practice.

Automated Identification of Common Disease-Specific Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research Using ClinicalTrials.gov: Algorithm Development and Validation Study

Background

Common disease-specific outcomes are vital for ensuring comparability of clinical trial data and enabling meta analyses and interstudy comparisons. Traditionally, the process of deciding which outcomes should be recommended as common for a particular disease relied on assembling and surveying panels of subject-matter experts. This is usually a time-consuming and laborious process.

Objective

The objectives of this work were to develop and evaluate a generalized pipeline that can automatically identify common outcomes specific to any given disease by finding, downloading, and analyzing data of previous clinical trials relevant to that disease.

Methods

An automated pipeline to interface with ClinicalTrials.gov’s application programming interface and download the relevant trials for the input condition was designed. The primary and secondary outcomes of those trials were parsed and grouped based on text similarity and ranked based on frequency. The quality and usefulness of the pipeline’s output were assessed by comparing the top outcomes identified by it for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to a list of 80 outcomes manually abstracted from the most frequently cited and comprehensive reviews delineating clinical outcomes for COPD.

Results

The common disease-specific outcome pipeline successfully downloaded and processed 3876 studies related to COPD. Manual verification indicated that the pipeline was downloading and processing the same number of trials as were obtained from the self-service ClinicalTrials.gov portal. Evaluating the automatically identified outcomes against the manually abstracted ones showed that the pipeline achieved a recall of 92% and precision of 79%. The precision number indicated that the pipeline was identifying many outcomes that were not covered in the literature reviews. Assessment of those outcomes indicated that they are relevant to COPD and could be considered in future research.

Conclusions

An automated evidence-based pipeline can identify common clinical trial outcomes of comparable breadth and quality as the outcomes identified in comprehensive literature reviews. Moreover, such an approach can highlight relevant outcomes for further consideration.

A Review of Registered Clinical Trials on Dietary (Poly)Phenols: Past Efforts and Possible Future Directions

In recent years, the increasing number of studies on polyphenol demonstrates the efforts in elucidating the potential role of these bioactives on human health. This study reviews the main topics and characteristics of clinical trials on polyphenols registered over the last 20 years, in order to track past and current efforts as well as to highlight the main research gaps in this field. The review was conducted by collecting trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry. Overall, 750 clinical trials were selected and included in the final evaluation. Most of the trials were performed on extracts or pure compounds followed by studies conducted on polyphenol-rich foods, in particular berries. A total of 520 clinical trials focused on health effects, 55 on bioavailability, and 175 on both. Regarding outcomes, 139 registered intervention studies had the lipid profile and blood pressure as primary outcomes. The overview provided by this analysis also emphasizes the emerging interest in new outcomes related to polyphenols intervention such as microbiota composition and the evaluation of inter-individual variability in response to the intake of polyphenols. Our review underlines the need of further trials covering unexplored or debated research aspects and provides insights for the design and development of future intervention studies and related research areas.

Study design, result posting and publication of late-stage cardiovascular trials

AIMS

Pre-registration of study protocols in accessible databases is required for publication of study results in high-impact medical journals. Nonetheless, data on characteristics of clinical trials registered in these databases and their outcome, in terms of result reporting and publication are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched for interventional, late-phase cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies in adults registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. first posted after 1/1/2013 and completed up to 31/12/2018. Data on study design, result reporting and publication were collected, and potential associations with a pre-defined set of explanatory factors were examined.In total, 250 CVD trials were included in the analysis. Of these, 193 (77.2%) were randomized studies, 99 (39.6%) open label designs, and 126 (50.4%) had industry as main sponsor. 179 trials (71.6%) evaluated the effect of drugs and 27 (10.8%) evaluated devices. The most common primary outcomes were non-clinical endpoints (76.0%), with only 17% of studies evaluating clinical endpoints. Industry-funded trials focused on patent-protected drugs and devices more often than non-industry-funded trials (72.0% vs. 30.6%, P < 0.001 and 55.0% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.033, respectively). Sixty three studies (25.2%) had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov, and 116 (46.4%) had results published in the scientific literature. In multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship was statistically significantly associated with results posting (OR: 3.38; 95% CI: 1.56-7.30, P = 0.002) and publication (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.75, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Among late-stage cardiovascular trials only 1/4 had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov and <50% had results published. Industry sponsors were more likely to invest in research on patent-protected drugs and devices than were non-industry sponsors. Industry-sponsored studies were more likely to have their results posted, but less likely to have their results published in the scientific literature.

Characteristics of Industry-Sponsored Drug Clinical Trials Registered in Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center Clinical Trials Information 2010-2018

PURPOSE

To examine the trends and characteristics of industry-sponsored drug clinical trials registered in the JapicCTI (Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center Clinical Trials Information) in 2010-2018.

METHODS

A data set of 3116 clinical trials registered from Jan. 2010 to Dec. 2018 were analyzed. Fundamental characteristics of the clinical trials were analyzed by 3-year time periods. The analysis was also focused on 3 therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, mental health, and oncology.

RESULTS

Of all the trials (2010-2018), 74.7% were conducted in Japan only; the rate decreased from 82.8 to 65.3% over the 3 time periods. Most trials were phase 3 trials, which comprised 44.1% of the trials. Small trials (anticipated number of 1000 or fewer participants) made up 94.0% of the trials. Oncology trials (29.5%) were the most common type and involved more phase 1 trials than mental health and cardiovascular trials (33.6% vs 14.5% and 11.5%, respectively). Oncology trials composed the smallest proportion of trials conducted in "Japan only" at 57.3% vs 81.0% and 83.1% for mental health and cardiovascular trials, respectively (p < 0.001). The median of the anticipated number of participants in mental health trials were larger than those in cardiovascular and oncology trials (p = 0.001). Mental health trials were more likely to permit children under age 15 (10.9% vs 4.9% for cardiovascular and 1.2% for oncology). Oncology trials were more likely not to set an upper age limit (89.8% vs 51.4% for cardiovascular and 41.7% for mental health). Cardiovascular and mental health trials were more likely to be conducted as "double blind" (42.4% and 47.1%, respectively vs 16.7% for oncology).

CONCLUSION

During this time, the majority of industry-sponsored trials in Japan were phase 3 trials, Japan only and small trials. There were differences in clinical trials among the 3 therapeutic areas: size of the trial, globalization, phase, age of participants, blinding.

Barriers to university-industry collaboration in an academic university department in London, United Kingdom

Purpose

University-industry collaboration yields numerous advantages resulting in potential benefits in funding research and innovation. Despite the numerous benefits, there are various perceived disadvantages of such collaboration especially in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry in prominent academic institutes in London, UK. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions, opinions, beliefs and attitudes of the academics and clinicians in an academic university department towards industry collaboration.

Design/methodology/approach

Two methods were applied, quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative method used an online questionnaire of four-point Likert-Scale, the link of which was emailed to 80 members of the department with a response rate of 32%. The qualitative method included a one-to-one interview with eight researchers from the department to garner in-depth information on the attitude of researchers in child and adolescent psychiatry towards industry collaboration.

Findings

The online questionnaire was completed by 26 researchers, the vast majority perceived industry as biased to favour their product and as having a bad or mixed reputation. One-on-one interviews with eight prominent researchers allowed us to share their perception and attitude towards industry collaboration, although the researchers believe that availability of funding was the major advantage of working in collaboration with industry, many did not know how to access such grants and some raised concerns about industry’s record of presenting partial results.

Research limitations/implications

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

Practical implications

This paper will shed light on how prominent researchers perceive collaboration with industry.

Originality/value

Although researchers are very reluctant to collaborate with industry because of its public opinion and sometimes unethical and lack of integrity among the industry, with rigorous ethical guidelines and policies, the pharmaceutical industry can be a potential and significant source of funding of high-quality research and innovation.

A critical examination of the main premises of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) consists of a plethora of therapeutic approaches aiming to both characterize and treat diseases. Its utilization has gained significant popularity in the western world and is even backed by the World Health Organization's decision to include TCM diagnostic patterns into the new revision of the International Classification of Diseases code, the global standard for diagnostic health information. As these developments and potentially far-reaching decisions can affect modern healthcare systems and daily clinical work as well as wildlife conservation, its underlying factual basis must be critically examined. This article therefore provides an overview of the evidence underlying the basic TCM concepts, such as Qi, meridians, acupuncture, pulse and tongue diagnostics as well as traditional herbal treatments. Moreover, it discusses whether scientific literature on TCM reflects the current standard for evidence-based research, as described in good scientific practice and good clinical practice guidelines. Importantly, misinformation regarding the therapeutic efficacy of animal-derived substances has lead and currently leads to problems with wildlife preservation and animal ethics. Nevertheless, the (re-)discovery of artemisinin more than 50 years ago introduced a novel development in TCM: the commingling of Eastern and Western medicine, the appreciation of both systems. The need for more rigorous approaches, fulfilment of and agreement to current guidelines to achieve high-quality research are of utmost relevance. Thereby, ancient knowledge of herbal species and concoctions may serve as a possible treasure box rather than Pandora's box.

Sponsorship of oncology clinical trials in the United States according to age of eligibility

Background

The sponsorship mix of trials relevant to young people with cancer has not been reported. Understanding this sponsorship mix may have implications for policies and regulations related to pediatric cancer drug development.

Methods

We analyzed sponsorship of interventional trials first opened in the United States from 2007 to 2018 using the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. A total of 51 781 trials across non‐oncology disciplines and 18 431 oncology trials were classified according to lower age of eligibility (≥18 years vs < 18 years). Studies were stratified according to sponsorship (industry vs non‐industry). Trial characteristics were compared by sponsorship category. Trends in sponsorship were tracked over time.

Results

Within oncology trials for patients ≥ 18 years, sponsorship was 33% industry and 67% non‐industry. Among oncology trials that included patients < 18 years, sponsorship was 16.6% industry and 83.4% non‐industry (P < .001). 15.5% of industry‐sponsored trials in non‐oncology disciplines included patients < 18 years, whereas only 5.2% of industry‐sponsored oncology trials were open to patients < 18 years (P < .001). Relative to trials with non‐industry sponsors, there was a statistically significant increase in industry sponsorship of oncology trials that included patients < 18 years over time (P < .001). Trial characteristics differed significantly according to sponsor type regardless of age of eligibility.

Conclusions

Interventional oncology trials that include patients < 18 years are less likely to be industry‐sponsored compared to oncology trials exclusively in patients ≥ 18 years. Compared to other medical disciplines, a smaller proportion of industry‐sponsored oncology trials included patients < 18 years. Trial sponsorship is associated with differential trial characteristics, such as trial duration and number of patients enrolled, regardless of age.

The Inclusion of Economic Endpoints as Outcomes in Clinical Trials Reported to ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

As medication expenditures rise, payers are increasingly demanding evidence of economic value for new medications. The 2015 Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials noted that clinical trials are increasingly including health care utilization endpoints to address this rising interest in economic information.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe the prevalence of economic endpoints in clinical trials submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov and (b) examine associations between trial characteristics and the inclusion of economic endpoints.

METHODS

This retrospective review of ClinicalTrials.gov data extracted the characteristics of clinical trials that were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2004 to December 2018; studied a drug and/or biological; and had a recruitment status of not yet recruiting, recruiting, active but not recruiting, or completed. Studies were classified as containing an economic endpoint based on 2 independent evaluations of the inclusion of endpoints relevant to costs, resource utilization, cost-effectiveness, productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism, or unemployment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize trial characteristics, and chi-square analyses were used to evaluate differences in characteristics between trials with and without economic endpoints.

RESULTS

Of the 104,885 trials included in the study, 1,437 (1.37%) included an economic endpoint; among later phase (phase 2/3, 3, 4) trials, 939 (2.54%) included economic endpoints. Compared with studies that did not include economic endpoints, those that did were less often industry funded (48.0% vs. 52.0%, P < 0.001) and were for a high-spend specialty condition (24.1% vs. 27.4%, P < 0.001). The proportion of trials that included economic endpoints increased by a small but significant amount over the time period studied, from 1.2% (2004-2008) to 1.6% (2014-2018; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A small but growing number of clinical trials are including economic endpoints. This finding may reflect continued industry concerns surrounding the cost and logistical challenges of piggybacking economic data collection alongside clinical trials and/or manufacturers' preferences for modeling for value demonstration. Future research is needed to better understand barriers to the inclusion of economic endpoints as well as the degree to which incorporating health care resource utilization collected during clinical trials into early economic modeling may reduce payer concerns about model transparency and bias.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Patterson reports past employment by Indivior, unrelated to this study. Mitchell has nothing to disclose. The research included in this study was presented as a nonreviewed student pharmacist poster at AMCP Nexus 2019; October 30-November 1, 2019; National Harbor, MD.

Characteristics of Trials Associated With Drugs Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and 2016

INTRODUCTION

New drug products are tested for safety and efficacy in clinical trials before being approved for use in medical practice. Clinical trial data are often misreported or underreported to ClinicalTrials.gov and in the medical literature. There is limited research on clinical trial characteristics for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs, particularly examining differences in characteristics across different approval pathways or therapeutic indications.

METHODS

Data from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) were used to compare the characteristics of completed clinical trials for drugs approved by the FDA in 2015 and 2016 across different approval pathways (expedited vs. nonexpedited) and therapeutic indications (oncology vs. nononcology).

RESULTS

There were 59 novel therapeutic drugs approved by the FDA in 2015 and 2016. A search of the AACT database yielded 955 studies that were associated with these 59 drugs. Median Phase 2 trial enrollment was smaller for drugs granted expedited approval compared with drugs without expedited approval (60 vs. 94; P=0.0079) and for oncology drugs compared with nononcology drugs (53 vs. 92; P<0.001). In general, trials across all phases were less likely to be blinded for drugs that received expedited approval compared with drugs without expedited approval and for oncology drugs compared with nononcology drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of clinical trials differ across different approval pathways and therapeutic indications. More research is needed to determine whether the information from clinical trials of approved drugs is sufficient to adequately inform the public regarding their potential benefits and harms.

Characteristics of studies of pharmacist services registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVE

To examine the characteristics of studies of pharmacist services registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify studies of pharmacist services. Registration information was obtained from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database. Studies were excluded if the ClinicalTrials.gov submission date was after December 31, 2018; there were no U.S. study sites; pharmacist services were not mentioned; or pharmacist involvement was limited to medication dispensing, randomization, or measuring study outcomes.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Characteristics of registered studies from ClinicalTrials.gov and AACT data, categories of pharmacist services, changes in registration and focus of pharmacist services over time, and relationships between funding source and result availability and between the focus of pharmacist services and types of outcomes and types of pharmacist interventions.

RESULTS

Overall 401 studies were identified for initial review, with 151 included for detailed review. Pharmacist services were the only intervention in 68 studies (45.0%), a separate intervention in 14 (9.3%), and part of a combined intervention in 40 (26.5%). In 29 studies (19.2%), pharmacist services were not the focus. Registered studies primarily were interventional, randomized, and open-label; included behavioral or "other" interventions; were conducted in the outpatient setting; and were sponsored by "other" sources. The most common health conditions were hypertension and diabetes. Only 29 of the 104 completed studies (27.9%) posted results. Clinical outcomes were the most common primary (80; 53.0%) and secondary outcomes (66; 58.9%). Medication management (69; 45.7%) and patient education or counseling (88; 58.3%) were the most common types of pharmacist interventions.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov identified 151 studies of pharmacist services in the United States registered through the end of 2018. Given the breadth of the pharmacy services literature, there is room for improvement in the registration of these types of studies.

Characteristics associated with Publication of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: A 15-Year Analysis, 2004-2018

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide important data to guide clinical decisions. Publication bias may limit the applicability of RCTs because many clinical investigators prefer to submit and journals more selectively accept studies with positive results. The authors tested the hypothesis that positive RCTs published in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia were more likely to be associated with factors known to predict publication of positive versus negative RCTs in other journals. This observational study was an internet analysis of all issues of Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia from 2004-2018. Each issue was searched to identify human RCTs. The numbers of centers and enrolled patients in each RCT were tabulated. The corresponding author determined the country of origin (United States v international). A trial was "positive" or "negative" based on rejection or confirmation of the null hypothesis, respectively, for the primary outcome variable or the majority of measured outcomes if a primary outcome was not identified. The presence or absence of a hypothesis, randomization methodology, sample size calculation, and blinded research design was recorded. Registration in a public database, Consolidated Statements of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline compliance, and the source of funding also were determined. The number of citations for each RCT was determined by using Google Scholar; the citation rate was calculated as the ratio of the number of total citations and the duration in years since the trial's original publication. A total of 296 RCTs were identified, of which 58.8% reported positive results. Most RCTs were single center, relatively small, and international in origin. Total citations/RCT decreased over time, but citations/year did not. The percentage of RCTs that identified a randomization method, were registered, or followed CONSORT guidelines increased in a time-dependent manner. No differences in any factors associated with publication of RCTs were observed when positive and negative trials were compared. The Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia publishes more positive than negative RCTs, but factors that have been previously associated with RCT publication in other journals were similar between groups.

Characteristics of mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

The ClinicalTrials.gov registry was established in 2000 to address concerns about publication bias and public access to information about clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate differences between for-profit and non-profit sponsors of efficacy mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on key trial characteristics that relate to data integrity. We also sought to evaluate whether the registry is fulfilling its purpose as a means of promoting transparency between researchers and the public by providing complete and quality information about the trials it contains. We found that trials tend to be small, use a placebo instead of an active comparator, and employ randomization and blinding. We discuss the implications of these design characteristics and the limitations of the registry.

Associations between industry involvement and study characteristics at the time of trial registration in biomedical research

BACKGROUND

Commercial or industry funding is associated with outcomes that favour the study funder in published studies, across various areas of research. However, it is currently unclear whether there are differences between trials with and without industry involvement at the stage of trial registration.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether industry involvement (industry sponsorship, funding, or collaboration) is associated with trial characteristics at the time of trial registration.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all interventional studies registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry in 2017 and classified them by industry involvement. We analysed whether there were differences in study characteristics (including type of control, sample size, study phase, randomisation, registration timing, and purpose of study) by industry involvement.

RESULTS

Industry involvement was reported by 21% of the 1,433 included trials. Only 40% of trials with industry involvement used an active control compared to 58% of non-industry trials (OR = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.63, p < .001), and industry trials reported smaller sample sizes (Median(IQR)industry = 45(24-100), Median(IQR)non-industry = 70(35-160), Mean Difference = -153, 95% CI = -233 to -75, p < .001). Industry trials were more likely to be earlier phase trials (Χ2(df) = 71.46(4), p < .001). There was no difference in use of randomisation between industry (70%) and non-industry trials (73%) (OR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.67-1.20, p = .38). Eighty-three percent of industry trials compared to 70% of non-industry trials were prospectively registered (OR = 2.02, 95%CI = 1.47-2.82, p < .001). Industry trials were more likely to assess treatment (85%), rather than prevention, education or diagnosis compared to non-industry trials (64%) (OR = 3.02, 95%CI = 2.17-4.32, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The current study gives insight into differences in trial characteristics by industry involvement at registration stage. There was a reduced use of active controls in trials with industry involvement which has previously been proposed as a mechanism behind more favourable results. Non-industry funders and sponsors are crucial to ensure research addresses not only treatments, but also prevention, diagnosis and education questions.

The effects of industry funding and positive outcomes in the interpretation of clinical trial results: a randomized trial among Dutch psychiatrists

BACKGROUND

Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists' appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome.

METHODS

Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results (10-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey (completion rate 45%). Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility (Mean Difference MD 0.12; 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.47, p?) nor interpretation of its clinical relevance (MD 0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27, p?). A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome (MD 0.81 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores (MD -0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

The commercialization of the biomedical sciences: (mis)understanding bias

The growing commercialization of scientific research has raised important concerns about industry bias. According to some evidence, so-called industry bias can affect the integrity of the science as well as the direction of the research agenda. I argue that conceptualizing industry's influence in scientific research in terms of bias is unhelpful. Insofar as industry sponsorship negatively affects the integrity of the research, it does so through biasing mechanisms that can affect any research independently of the source of funding. Talk about industry bias thus offers no insight into the particular epistemic shortcomings at stake. If the concern is with the negative effects that industry funding can have on the research agenda, conceptualizing this influence as bias obscures the ways in which such impact is problematic and limits our ability to offer solutions that can successfully address the concerns raised by the growing role of private funding in science.

Trial registration, publication rate and characteristics in the research field of otology: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To examine 1) the publication rate of registered otology trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2) the public availability of the results, 3) the study characteristics associated with publication, and 4) the time to publication after trial completion.

BACKGROUND

Publication bias, the publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of results, is accountable for wrong treatment decisions. The extent of publication bias in otology trials has not been evaluated.

METHODS

All registered otology trials were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov with completion date up to December 2015. A search strategy was used to identify corresponding publications up to June 2017, providing at least 18 months to publish the results after trial completion. Characteristics were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications. Regression models were used to examine study characteristics associated with publication or non-publication.

RESULTS

From the 419 trials identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, 225 (53.7%) corresponding publications were found in PubMed. Among these, 109 (48.4%) publications were cited on ClinicalTrials.gov and 124 (55.1%) articles reported the National Clinical Trial registry number. For 36 (8.6%) trials, results were only reported in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials with a biological intervention were more likely to be published than studies involving drugs (odds ratio (OR) 10.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-86.22, P = 0.030). Trials funded by industry were less likely to be published (OR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.84, P = 0.011). The median trial duration was 20 months (interquartile range (IQR) 26 months), and median time from trial completion to publication was 24 months (IQR 22 months).

CONCLUSION

In 37.7% of the registered otology trials the results remained unpublished, even several years after trial completion. With little citations on ClinicalTrials.gov and low reporting of the Clinical Trial registry number, the accessibility is limited. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in accuracy of trial registration and publication of results, in order to diminish publication bias in otology studies.

Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials are critical to the advancement of medical knowledge. However, the reliability of trial conclusions depends in part on consistency between pre-planned and reported study outcomes. Unfortunately, selective outcome reporting, in which outcomes reported in published manuscripts differ from pre-specified study outcomes, is common. Trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov have the potential to help identify and stop selective outcome reporting during peer review by allowing peer reviewers to compare outcomes between registry entries and submitted manuscripts. However, the persistently high rate of selective outcome reporting among published clinical trials indicates that the current peer review process at most journals does not effectively address the problem of selective outcome reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PRE-REPORT is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that will test whether providing peer reviewers with a summary of registered, pre-specified primary trial outcomes decreases inconsistencies between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes. Peer reviewed manuscripts describing clinical trial results will be included. Eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal during the study period will comprise each cluster. After an initial control phase, journals will transition to the intervention phase in random order, after which peer reviewers will be emailed registry information consisting of the date of registration and any prospectively defined primary outcomes. Blinded outcome assessors will compare registered and published primary outcomes for all included trials. The primary PRE-REPORT outcome is the presence of a published primary outcome that is consistent with a prospectively defined primary outcome in the study's trial registry. The primary outcome will be analysed using a mixed effect logistical regression model to compare results between the intervention and control phases.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Cooper Health System Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not meet criteria for human subject research. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN41225307; Pre-results.

A review of drug knowledge discovery using BioNLP and tensor or matrix decomposition

Prediction of the relations among drug and other molecular or social entities is the main knowledge discovery pattern for the purpose of drug-related knowledge discovery. Computational approaches have combined the information from different sources and levels for drug-related knowledge discovery, which provides a sophisticated comprehension of the relationship among drugs, targets, diseases, and targeted genes, at the molecular level, or relationships among drugs, usage, side effect, safety, and user preference, at a social level. In this research, previous work from the BioNLP community and matrix or matrix decomposition was reviewed, compared, and concluded, and eventually, the BioNLP open-shared task was introduced as a promising case study representing this area.

Clinical Trials Focusing on Drug Control and Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective: Clinical trials have emerged as the main force in driving the development of medicine. However, little is known about the current status of clinical trials regarding drug control and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This study aimed at providing a comprehensive landscape of these trials on the basis of ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study of clinical trials on drug control and prevention of VAP which have been registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov up to 25^th August 2018 was conducted.

Results: A total of 109 eligible trials were identified. Trials were started from 1998 to 2018, and most trials focused on adult patients. More than half trials were completed, while only 11.9% trials had results available. Sample sizes were relatively large, with a median enrollment of 146. Universities were listed as the primary sponsor for 36.7% trials, industry for 28.4% trials and hospitals for 19.3% trials. Of the 109 VAP trials, 37 trials were from in Europe, 36 in North America and 27 in Asia. Among the 97 interventional trials, 32 were phase 3 trials, 21 were phase 4 trials, and 16 were phase 2 trials. Most interventional trials were randomized trials with a parallel assignment, and 57.7% trials were blinded. Of the 12 observational trials, 9 were cohort studies, and 10 trials were prosepctive studies. Drugs about oral care, preemptive antibiotics and probiotics were most investigated for prevention. A total of 61 trials investigated drugs for the treatment of VAP, mainly focused on antibiotics. A total of 36 kinds of antibiotics were investigated for monotherapy or combination therapy. Beta-lactams were most studied, followed by aminoglycosides and polypeptides.

Conclusion: Most clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov about drugs for VAP were interventional trials with the purpose for treatment. A high proportion of interventional trials were randomized, parallel assigned and masked. Our analysis highlights the need for improvement in completeness of study results on the ClinicalTrials.gov.

The timing and frequency of trial inclusion in systematic reviews of type 2 diabetes drugs was associated with trial characteristics

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether certain trial characteristics are associated with faster or more frequent inclusion in systematic reviews for drug interventions in type 2 diabetes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined trials included in systematic reviews published between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2017. Primary outcomes were time between trial publication and first inclusion in a systematic review and frequency of inclusion in systematic reviews over the study period. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and regression models quantified associations with funding source, number of participants, trial conclusion, and journal impact factor.

RESULTS

Among 668 trials, the median time to inclusion was 76.1 weeks. Time to inclusion was shorter for trials with industry funding (hazard ratio [HR] 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.71), more participants (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.17-1.36), and published in higher impact factor journals (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.14-1.45). The median frequency of inclusion was three. Frequency of inclusion was greater for trials with industry funding (relative risk [RR] 2.36; 95% CI 2.11-2.64), more participants (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.47-1.55), positive conclusions (RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.68-2.13), and published in higher impact factor journals (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.08-1.18).

CONCLUSION

Certain trial characteristics are associated with faster or more frequent trial inclusion in systematic reviews of type 2 diabetes.

Trial2rev: Combining machine learning and crowd-sourcing to create a shared space for updating systematic reviews

Objectives

Systematic reviews of clinical trials could be updated faster by automatically monitoring relevant trials as they are registered, completed, and reported. Our aim was to provide a public interface to a database of curated links between systematic reviews and trial registrations.

Materials and Methods

We developed the server-side system components in Python, connected them to a PostgreSQL database, and implemented the web-based user interface using Javascript, HTML, and CSS. All code is available on GitHub under an open source MIT license and registered users can access and download all available data.

Results

The trial2rev system is a web-based interface to a database that collates and augments information from multiple sources including bibliographic databases, the ClinicalTrials.gov registry, and the actions of registered users. Users interact with the system by browsing, searching, or adding systematic reviews, verifying links to trials included in the review, and adding or voting on trials that they would expect to include in an update of the systematic review. The system can trigger the actions of software agents that add or vote on included and relevant trials, in response to user interactions or by scheduling updates from external resources.

Discussion and Conclusion

We designed a publicly-accessible resource to help systematic reviewers make decisions about systematic review updates. Where previous approaches have sought to reactively filter published reports of trials for inclusion in systematic reviews, our approach is to proactively monitor for relevant trials as they are registered and completed.

Discrepancies in endpoints between clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registration in randomized trials in oncology

Background

Clinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries.

Methods

We reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries.

Results

Of the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials.

Conclusion

Although recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0627-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials: From 2011 to 2015

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important for evidence-based medicine; however, their quality of reporting remains to be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the report concerning solid tumor medication. Articles were searched in PubMed to identify all oncology phase III RCTs published from 2011 to 2015, and the results were classified manually through Endnote X7.0 software. Registration rate, primary end point (PEP) consistency, positive result rate, enrollment time point, outcome feedback in the registry, and publish time zone were extracted and assessed. The overall registration rate was higher than years before; nevertheless, a portion of trials showed PEP discrepancies and enrolled patients before registration in either journal formats. Trials published in top 5 general medical journals paid more attention to results feedback on registration websites and were more prompt with publication after study accomplishment. Our data suggested general medical journals may be more rigorous compared to oncology journals but identified a preference for positive results. On the whole, RCTs published between 2011 and 2015 seemed fairly standardized. Surveillance in registry and outcome feedback still needs to be strengthened for the stringency and reliability of clinical trials in solid tumor medication territory.

Publication of lung cancer clinical trials in the Japanese Clinical Trial Registry

Introduction

Since June 2005, the University Hospital Medical Information Network-Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN-CTR) has been an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-approved clinical trial registry in Japan. The number of clinical trials registered in the UMIN-CTR has increased annually. To date, no report exists regarding the publishing of clinical trials registered in the UMIN-CTR. Therefore, we evaluated the publication frequency of clinical trials registered in the UMIN-CTR in Japan.

Methods

We targeted trials that assessed the treatment effect of chemotherapy or molecular targeting drugs for lung cancer. We included trials registered between June 2005 and January 2010, and identified published trials through a computer-based search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar. The cumulative publication rate of the trials was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Results

In our study, 179 trials met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 46.4% (83/179) trials were published by the end of the cut-off period. With regard to publication, differences existed between the information recorded in the UMIN-CTR database and the actual searched results. The publication rate between groups was insignificantly different; however, whether a clinical study group did or did not conduct a trial differed significantly (53.3% vs. 36.1%; P = 0.024). Phase II studies with positive results were more likely to be published (84.4%); however, the overall publication rate was low (41.8%), which may reflect publication bias.

Conclusions

The UMIN-CTR fundamentally functions as the unique ICMJE-approved clinical trial registry in Japan. However, it seems insufficient to require it as the official clinical database.

Treatment after traumatic shoulder dislocation: a systematic review with a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review and compare treatments (1) after primary traumatic shoulder dislocation aimed at minimising the risk of chronic shoulder instability and (2) for chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability.

DESIGN

Intervention systematic review with random effects network meta-analysis and direct comparison meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, Web of Science) and reference lists were searched from inception to 15 January 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised trials comparing any interventions either after a first-time, traumatic shoulder dislocation or chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability, with a shoulder instability, function or quality of life outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomised controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting that labrum repair reduced the risk of future shoulder dislocation (relative risk 0.15; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.8, p=0.026), and that with non-surgical management 47% of patients did not experience shoulder redislocation. Very low to low-quality evidence suggested no benefit of immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation. There was low-quality evidence that an open procedure was superior to arthroscopic surgery for preventing shoulder redislocations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate-quality evidence that half of the patients managed with physiotherapy after a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation did not experience recurrent shoulder dislocations. If chronic instability develops, surgery could be considered. There was no evidence regarding the effectiveness of surgical management for post-traumatic chronic shoulder instability.