Clinical trial registries are of minimal use for identifying selective outcome and analysis reporting

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 273-284

  Norris, Susan L ^a   Holmer, Haley K ^a   Fu, Rongwei ^a   Ogden, Lauren A ^a   Viswanathan, Meera S ^b   Abou Setta, Ahmed M ^c  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bias; Randomized controlled trials; Selective analysis reporting; Selective outcome reporting; Systematic reviews; Trial registries

Indexed keywords

METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PILOT STUDY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PILOT PROJECTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGISTRIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84939203326     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1113     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality. 2013. Submit Scientific Information Packets. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/submit-scientific-information-packets/ [Accessed November 3, 2013].
2. Bekkering GE, Harris RJ, Thomas S, Mayer AM, Beynon R, Ness AR, Harbord RM, Bain C, Smith GD, Sterne JA, Bekkering GE, Harris RJ, Thomas S, Mayer A-MB, Beynon R, Ness AR, Harbord RM, Bain C, Smith GD, Sterne JAC. 2008. How much of the data published in observational studies of the association between diet and prostate or bladder cancer is usable for meta-analysis? American Journal of Epidemiology 167: 1017-1026.
3. Bennett W, Wilson L, Bolen S, Maruthur N, Singh S, Chatterjee R, Marinopoulos SS, Puhan MA, Ranasinghe P, Nicholson WK, Block L, Odelola O, Dalal DS, Ogbeche GE, Chandrasekhar A, Hutfless S, Bass EB, Segal JB. 2011. Oral diabetes medications for adults with type 2 diabetes: an update. Rockville, MD: Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 27. (Prepared by Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0018.).
4. Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD. 2010. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Annals of Internal Medicine 153: 158-166.
5. Dickersin K, Chalmers I. 2010. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. James Lind Library.
6. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, Decullier E, Easterbrook PJ, von Elm E, Gamble C, Ghersi D, Ioannidis JPA, Simes J, Williamson PR. 2008. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3: e3081.
7. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. 2011. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 1. Art. No.: MR000031. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2
8. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. 2013. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS ONE 8: e66844.
9. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. 1991. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337: 867-872.
10. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S. 2011. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Institutes of Medicine (ed.) Washington DC: National Academies Press.
11. Ewart R, Lausen H, Millian N. 2009. Undisclosed changes in outcomes in randomized controlled trials: an observational study. Annals of Family Medicine 7: 542-546.
12. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L, Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. 2012. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 344: d7202.
13. Higgins J, Altman D. 2008. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Higgins JPT, Green S (eds.). (pp. 187-242). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
14. Hutton JL, Williamson PR. 2002. Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 49: 359-370.
15. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, Williamson PR. 2010. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 340: c365.
16. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. 2012. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 12: MR000033.
17. Maclean C, Alexander A, Carter J, Chen S, Desai S, Grossman J, Maglione M, Mcmahon M, Mcnamara M, Mojica W, Newberry S, Ranganath V, Suttorp M, Timmer M, Tringale C, Valentine D, Zhou A. 2007. Comparative effectiveness of treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis. Rockville, MD: Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 12. (Prepared by Southern California/RAND Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0003).
18. Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. 2009. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302: 977-984.
19. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Fu R, Abou-Setta AM, Viswanathan MS, Mcpheeters ML. 2012. Selective outcome reporting as a source of bias in reviews of comparative effectiveness. Rockville, MD: (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA 290-2007-10057-I).
20. Rasmussen N, Lee K, Bero L. 2009. Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs. Trials 10: 116.
21. Ratner R, Eden J, Wolman D, Greenfield S, Sox H. 2009. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Institutes of Medicine (ed.) Washington DC: National Academies Press.
22. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. 2008. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Medicine 5: e217; discussion e217.
23. Sharma M, Ansari M, Soares-Weiser K, Abou-Setta A, Ooi T, Sears M, Yazdi F, Tsertsvadze A, Moher D. 2009. comparative effectiveness of lipid-modifying agents. Rockville, MD: Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 16. (Prepared by the University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. 290-02-0021).
24. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke Y, Ryder J, Sutton A, Hing C, Kwok C, Pang C, Harvey I. 2010. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment 14: 1-220.
25. Sterne J, Egger M, Moher D. 2008. Addressing reporting biases. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Higgins JPT, Green S (eds.). (pp. 297-333). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
26. Williamson PR, Clarke M. 2012. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative: its role in improving Cochrane Reviews [editorial]. The Cochrane Library. Available at: http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/details/editorial/1797057/The-COMET-Core-Outcome-Measures-in-Effectiveness-Trials-Initiative-its-role-in-i.html [Accessed May 7, 2012].
27. World Health Organization. 2011. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Available at: http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/ [Accessed August 9, 2011].
28. Zarin DA, Ide NC, Tse T, Harlan WR, West JC, Lindberg DAB. 2007. Issues in the registration of clinical trials. JAMA 297: 2112-2120.
29. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC, Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. 2011. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database - update and key issues. New England Journal of Medicine 364: 852-860.