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

Trials

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Berendt, Louise ^a,b,e,f   Callréus, Torbjörn ^b   Petersen, Lene Grejs ^b   Bach, Karin Friis ^a,d   Poulsen, Henrik Enghusen ^a,c,d   Dalhoff, Kim ^a,d  

^a BISPEBJERG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b Danish Health and Medicines Authority   (Denmark)

^c Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^e NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

^f Novo Nordisk A/S ^*  (Denmark)

Author keywords

Academic research; Clinical trial methodology; Clinical trials; Drug research; Outcome reporting bias; Published report

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE TEST; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENMARK; DRUG RESEARCH; FISHER EXACT TEST; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PARALLEL DESIGN; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; ORGANIZATION; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84958524810     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1189-4     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. wwwwmanet/en/30publications/10policies/b3/indexhtml. [serial online] 2008; Accessed 12 May 2013.
2. Chan AW, Upshur R, Singh JA, Ghersi D, Chapuis F, Altman DG. Research protocols: waiving confidentiality for the greater good. BMJ. 2006;332:1086-9.
3. Dickersin K CI. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. wwwjameslindlibraryorg/illustrating/articles/recognising-investigating-and-dealing-with-incomplete-and-biase. [serial online] 2013; Available from: The James Lind Library. Accessed 13 May 2013.
4. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:MR000031.
5. Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Evans S, Marshall T. Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet. Lancet. 2008;372:201.
6. Blumle A, Antes G, Schumacher M, Just H, von Elm E. Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:e20.
7. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457-65.
8. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. 2004;171:735-40.
9. Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL. Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. J Eval Clin Pract. 2002;8:353-9.
10. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. Outcome Reporting in Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for Off-Label Use. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1963-71.
11. von Elm E, Rollin A, Blumle A, Huwiler K, Witschi M, Egger M. Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Swiss Med Wkly. 2008;138:197-203.
12. Pich J, Carne X, Arnaiz JA, Gomez B, Trilla A, Rodes J. Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet. 2003;361:1015-6.
13. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ. 2004;328:22-4.
14. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ. 2003;326:1171-3.
15. Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:602-9.
16. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:252-60.
17. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e217.
18. von Elm E, Rollin A, Blumle A, Senessie C, Low N, Egger M. Selective reporting of outcomes of drug trials? Comparison of study protocols and published articles [abstract]. XIV Cochrane Colloquium; 2006 October 23-26; Dublin, Ireland 2006; 47.
19. Pildal J, Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Forfang E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study. BMJ. 2005;330:1049.
20. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ. 2008;337:a2299.
21. Gandhi M, Ameli N, Bacchetti P, et al. Eligibility criteria for HIV clinical trials and generalizability of results: the gap between published reports and study protocols. AIDS. 2005;19:1885-96.
22. Berendt L, Hakansson C, Bach KF, et al. Effect of European Clinical Trials Directive on academic drug trials in Denmark: retrospective study of applications to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993-2006. BMJ. 2008;336:33-5.
23. Berendt L, Hakansson C, Bach KF, et al. Methodological characteristics of academic clinical drug trials--a retrospective cohort study of applications to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993-2005. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70:729-35.
24. Eccles M, Freemantle N, Mason J. North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of developing guidelines for efficient drug use in primary care. BMJ. 1998;316:1232-5.
25. Vandenbroucke JP. Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e67.
26. Sheiner LB. Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;61:275-91.
27. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000251.
28. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Biomedical Journals: Obligation to Register Clinical Trials. wwwicmjeorg/. [serial online] 2012; Accessed 13 May 2013.
29. European Medicines Agency. EU Clinical Trials Register. www clinicaltrialsregister eu [serial online] 2013; Accessed 12 August 2013.
30. WHO. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). wwwhoint/ictrp/en/. [serial online] 2013; Accessed 12 August 2013.
31. Moja L, Moschetti I, Nurbhai M, et al. Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey. Trials. 2009;10:56.
32. Huic M, Marusic M, Marusic A. Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25258.
33. Faure H, Hrynaszkiewicz I. The ISRCTN Register: achievements and challenges 8 years on. J Evid Based Med. 2011;4:188-92.
34. Reveiz L, Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. Reporting of Methodologic Information on Trial Registries for Quality Assessment: A Study of Trial Records Retrieved from the WHO Search Portal. PLoS One. 2010;5:e12484.
35. Smyth RM, Kirkham JJ, Jacoby A, Altman DG, Gamble C, Williamson PR. Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ. 2011;342:c7153.