Discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome specifications in analgesic trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

Pain

Volumn 154, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2769-2774

  Smith, Shannon M ^a   Wang, Anthony T ^b   Pereira, Anthony ^a   Chang, R Daniel ^a   McKeown, Andrew ^a   Greene, Kaitlin ^c   Rowbotham, Michael C ^c   Burke, Laurie B ^d   Coplan, Paul ^e,f   Gilron, Ian ^g   Hertz, Sharon H ^d   Katz, Nathaniel P ^h,i   Lin, Allison H ^d   McDermott, Michael P ^a   Papadopoulos, Elektra J ^d   Rappaport, Bob A ^d   Sweeney, Michael ^j   Turk, Dennis C ^k   Dworkin, Robert H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

^b CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^e PURDUE PHARMA L P   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^g QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^h Analgesic Solutions   (United States)

ⁱ TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j Depomed Inc   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Analgesic medications; Clinical trials; Primary outcomes; Registry; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT;

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); HUMAN; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANALGESIC MEDICATIONS; CLINICAL TRIALS; PRIMARY OUTCOMES; REGISTRY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ANALGESICS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; REGISTRIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84889101512     PISSN: 03043959     EISSN: 18726623     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.08.011     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. S. Al-Marzouki, I. Roberts, S. Evans, and T. Marshall Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet Lancet 372 2008 201
2. B. Als-Nielsen, W. Chen, C. Gluud, and L.L. Kjaergard Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290 2003 921 928
3. S.A. Barnes, C.H. Mallinckrodt, S.R. Lindborg, and M.K. Carter The impact of missing data and how it is handled on the rate of false-positive results in drug development Pharm Stat 7 2008 215 225
4. F.T. Bourgeois, S. Murthy, and K.D. Mandl Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov Ann Intern Med 153 2010 158 166
5. A.W. Chan Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results PLoS Med 5 2008 e230
6. A.W. Chan, A. Hróbjartsson, M.T. Haahr, P.C. Gøtzsche, and D.G. Altman Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles JAMA 291 2004 2457 2465
7. A.W. Chan, K. Krleza-Jeric, I. Schmid, and D.G. Altman Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research CMAJ 171 2004 735 740
8. C.D. De Angelis, J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haug, J. Hoey, R. Horton, S. Kotzin, C. Laine, A. Marusic, A.J. Overbeke, T.V. Schroeder, H.C. Sox, and M.B. Van Der Weyden Is this clinical trial fully registered? a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors JAMA 293 2005 2927 2929
9. K. Dwan, D.G. Altman, J.A. Arnaiz, J. Bloom, A.W. Chan, E. Cronin, E. Decullier, P.H. Easterbrook, E. Von Elm, C. Gamble, D. Ghersi, J.P. Ioannidis, J. Simes, and P.R. Williamson Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias PLoS ONE 3 2008 e3081
10. G.B. Emerson, W.J. Warme, F.M. Wolf, J.D. Heckman, R.A. Brand, and S.S. Leopold Testing for the presence of a positive-outcome bias in peer review Arch Intern Med 170 2010 1934 1939
11. S. Evans When and how can endpoints be changed after initiation of a randomized clinical trial? PLoS Clin Trial 2 2007 e18
12. T.R. Fleming Clinical trials: discerning hype from substance Ann Intern Med 153 2010 400 406
13. L.M. Friedman, C.D. Furberg, and D.L. DeMets Fundamentals of clinical trials 4th ed. 2010 Springer New York
14. R. Gandhi, M. Jan, H.N. Smith, N.N. Mahomed, and M. Bhandari Comparison of published orthopaedic trauma trials following registration in ClinicalTrials.gov BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12 2011 278
15. C.J. Gill How often do U.S.-based human subjects research studies register on time, and how often do they post their results? A statistical analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database BMJ Open 2 2011 e001186
16. P.C. Gøtzsche Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it Trials 12 2011 249
17. K. Greene, R.H. Dworkin, and M.C. Rowbotham A snapshot and scorecard for analgesic clinical trials for chronic pain: the RReACT database PAIN® 153 2012 1794 1797
18. M. Huić, M. Marušić, and A. Marušić Completeness and changes in registered data and reporting bias of randomized controlled trials in ICMJE journals after trial registration policy PLoS ONE 6 2011 e25258
19. J.P.A. Ioannidis Why most published research findings are false PLoS Med 2 2005 e124
20. N.A. Khan, J.I. Lombeida, M. Singh, H.J. Spencer, and K.D. Torralba Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis Arthritis Rheum 64 2012 2059 2067
21. J.J. Kirkham, K.M. Dwan, D.G. Altman, C. Gamble, S. Dodd, R. Smyth, and P.R. Williamson The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews BMJ 340 2010 c365
22. C. Laine, R. Horton, C.D. DeAngelis, J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, F. Godlee, C. Haug, P.C. Hébert, S. Kotzin, A. Marusic, P. Sahni, T.V. Schroeder, H.C. Sox, M.B. Van Der Weyeden, and F.W. Verheugt Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead JAMA 298 2007 93 94
23. H. Liu-Seifert, S. Zhang, D. D'Souza, and V. Skljarevski A closer look at the baseline-observation-carried-forward (BOCF) Patient Prefer Adher 4 2010 11 16
24. B.A. Mansi, J. Clark, F.S. David, T.M. Gesell, S. Glasser, J. Gonzalez, D.G. Haller, C. Laine, C.L. Miller, L.A. Mooney, and M. Zecevic Ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research: a joint journal and pharmaceutical industry perspective Mayo Clin Proc 87 2012 424 429
25. S. Mathieu, I. Boutron, D. Moher, D.G. Altman, and P. Ravaud Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials JAMA 302 2004 977 984
26. G. Molenberghs, and M.G. Kenward Missing data in clinical studies 2007 John Wiley and Sons Chichester, UK
27. R.A. Moore, S. Straube, C. Eccleston, S. Derry, D. Aldington, P. Wiffen, R.F. Bell, K. Hamunen, C. Phillips, and H. McQuay Estimate at your peril: imputation methods for patient withdrawal can bias efficacy outcomes in chronic pain trials using responder analyses PAIN® 153 2012 265 268
28. A.B. O'Connor LOCF approach to handling missing data overestimates the pain score improvement of drop-outs J Pain 11 2010 500 501
29. A.B. O'Connor, and R.H. Dworkin Clinical trial design for chronic pain treatments C. Stannard, E. Kalso, J. Ballantyne, Evidence-based chronic pain management 2010 Blackwell Hoboken, NJ 14 30
30. K. Rising, P. Bacchetti, and L. Bero Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation PLoS Med 5 2008 e217
31. M.C. Rowbotham The case for publishing "negative" clinical trials PAIN® 146 2009 225 226
32. O. Siddiqui, H.M.J. Hung, and R. O'Neill MMRM vs LOCF: a comprehensive comparison based on simulation study and 25 NDA datasets J Biopharm Stat 19 2009 227 246
33. H.N. Smith, M. Bhandari, N.N. Mahomed, M. Jan, and R. Gandhi Comparison of arthroplasty trial publications after registration in ClinicalTrials.gov J Arthroplasty 27 2012 1283 1288
34. D.C. Turk, R.H. Dworkin, M.P. McDermott, N. Bellamy, L.B. Burke, J.M. Chandler, C.S. Cleeland, P. Cowan, R. Dimitrova, J.T. Farrar, S. Hertz, J.F. Heyse, S. Iyengar, A.R. Jadad, G.W. Jay, J.A. Jermano, N.P. Katz, D.C. Manning, S. Martin, M.B. Max, P. McGrath, H.J. McQuay, S. Quessy, B.A. Rappaport, D.A. Revicki, M. Rothman, J.W. Stauffer, O. Svensson, R.E. White, and J. Witter Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations PAIN® 139 2008 485 493
35. E.H. Turner, D. Knoepflmacher, and L. Shapley Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration database PLoS Med 9 2012 e1001189
36. E.H. Turner, A.M. Matthews, E. Linardatos, R.A. Tell, and R. Rosenthal Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy N Engl J Med 358 2008 252 260
37. S.S. Vedula, L. Bero, R.W. Scherer, and K. Dickersin Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of Gabapentin for off-label use N Engl J Med 361 2009 1963 1971
38. S.S. Vedula, P.S. Goldman, I.J. Rona, T.M. Greene, and K. Dickersin Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin litigation Trials 13 2012 136
39. S.S. Vedula, T. Li, and K. Dickersin Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of Gabapentin PLoS Med 10 2013 e1001378
40. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for research involving human subjects. Adopted by the 18th WMA, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964. Amended by the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, Korea, October 2004. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/; [accessed 19.03.13].