Outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: Why monitoring matters

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 356, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Ioannidis, John Pa ^a   Caplan, Arthur L ^b   Dal Ré, Rafael ^c  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 85013092743     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j408     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Jones CW, Keil LG, Holland WC, Caughey MC, Platts-Mills TF. Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review. BMC Med 2015;356:282. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0520-3
2. Goldacre B, Drysdale H, Dale A, et al. The COMPare project. Tracking switched outcomes in clinical trials. http://compare-Trials.org/
3. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2016;356:i195.
4. Gilbody S, Bower P, Littlewood L, Knowles S. Final response from the authors on the integrity of outcome reporting in the REEACT trial. [electronic response to Gilbody et al. Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2016. http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5627/rr-15
5. Dal-Ré R, Bracken MB, Ioannidis JP. Call to improve transparency of trials of non-regulated interventions. BMJ 2015;356:h1323. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1323
6. De Oliveira GS Jr, , Jung MJ, McCarthy RJ. Discrepancies between randomized controlled trial registry entries and content of corresponding manuscripts reported in anesthesiology journals. Anesth Analg 2015;356:1030-3. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000824 .
7. Hooft L, Korevaar DA, Molenaar N, Bossuyt PM, Scholten RJ. Endorsement of ICMJEs clinical trial registration policy: A survey among journal editors. Neth J Med 2014;356:349-55.
8. Viergever RF, Karam G, Reis A, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials: still a problem. PLoS One 2014;356:e84727. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084727
9. Ioannidis JP. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 2008;356:640-8. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818131e7 pmid:18633328.
10. Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JP. Practices and impact of primary outcome adjustment in randomized controlled trials: meta-epidemiologic study. BMJ 2013;356:f4313. doi:10. 1136/bmj.f4313
11. van Lent M, IntHout J, Out HJ. Differences between information in registries and articles did not influence publication acceptance. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;356:1059-67. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.019
12. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: A systematic review. PLoS One 2014;356:e99111. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099111
13. Ioannidis JP, Horbar JD, Ovelman CM, et al. Completeness of main outcomes across randomized trials in entire discipline: survey of chronic lung disease outcomes in preterm infants. BMJ 2015;356:h72. doi:10.1136/bmj.h72
14. Dal-Ré R, Ross JS, Marusić A. Compliance with prospective trial registration guidance remained low in high-impact journals and has implications for primary end point reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;356:100-7. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.017
15. Dal-Ré R, Caplan AL. Journal editors impasse with outcome reporting bias. Eur J Clin Invest 2015;356:895-8. doi:10.1111/eci.12484
16. Weston J, Dwan K, Altman D, et al. Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ. BMJ Open 2016;356:e010075. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010075
17. Dal-Ré R, Caplan AL. Time to ensure that clinical trial appropriate results are actually published. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2014;356:491-3. doi:10.1007/s00228-013-1635-0 .
18. Mathieu S, Chan AW, Ravaud P. Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLoS One 2013;356:e59910. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059910
19. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, Barnes C, Boutron I. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med 2015;356:158. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3
20. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010;356:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365
21. Hoffmann T, Erueti C, Thorning S, Glasziou P. The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties. BMJ 2012;356:e3223. doi:10.1136/bmj.e3223
22. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?PLoS Med 2010;356:e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed. 1000326
23. Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, et al. OPEN consortium. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One 2014;356:e114023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114023
24. Stegert M, Kasenda B, von Elm E, et al. DISCO study group. An analysis of protocols and publications suggested that most discontinuations of clinical trials were not based on preplanned interim analyses or stopping rules. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;356:152-60. doi:10. 1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.023
25. Williams RJ, Tse T, DiPiazza K, Zarin DA. Terminated trials in the clinicaltrials.gov results database: evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLoS One 2015;356:e0127242. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127242
26. Ebrahim S, Montoya L, Kamal El Din M, et al. Randomized trials are frequently fragmented in multiple secondary publications. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;356:130-9. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi. 2016.05.016
27. Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C, et al. Sharing clinical trial data. BMJ 2016;356:i255. doi:10.1136/bmj.i255