Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: An audit

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  Ziai, Hedyeh ^a,b   Zhang, Rujun ^a,c   Chan, An Wen ^c,d   Persaud, Nav ^c,e,f  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d WOMEN S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^f ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Review; Systematic Publication Bias Unpublished Data

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA EXTRACTION; HUMAN; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDLINE; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BIBLIOMETRICS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; STANDARDS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; PUBLICATION BIAS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85031118558     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017737     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014;383:257-66.
2. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 1997;9:15-21.
3. Benjamin DK, Smith PB, Murphy MD, et al. Peer-reviewed publication of clinical trials completed for pediatric exclusivity. JAMA 2006;296:1266.
4. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, et al. Grey literature in metaanalyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;18:MR000010.
5. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses Lancet 2000;356:e31-1231.
6. Abraham NS, Moayyedi P, Daniels B, et al. Systematic review: The methodological quality of trials affects estimates of treatment efficacy in functional (non-ulcer) dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;19:e41.
7. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 2012;344:d7202.
8. Singh SP, Singh V, Kar N. Efficacy of agomelatine in major depressive disorder: meta-analysis and appraisal. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2012;15:417-28.
9. Montgomery SA, Kasper S. Severe depression and antidepressants: focus on a pooled analysis of placebo-controlled studies on agomelatine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2007;22:283-91.
10. Howland RH. A benefit-risk assessment of agomelatine in the treatment of major depression. Drug Saf 2011;34:709-31.
11. Koesters M, Guaiana G, Cipriani A, et al. Agomelatine efficacy and acceptability revisited: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomised trials. Br J Psychiatry 2013;203:179-87.
12. Ebell MH, Call M, Shinholser J. Effectiveness of oseltamivir in adults: A meta-analysis of published and unpublished clinical trials. Fam Pract 2013;30:125-33.
13. Rahimi K, Bhala N, Kamphuisen P, et al. Effect of statins on venous thromboembolic events: A meta-analysis of published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001310.
14. Man-Son-Hing M, Wells G, Lau A. Quinine for nocturnal leg cramps: A meta-analysis including unpublished data. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13:600-6.
15. Eyding D, Lelgemann M, Grouven U, et al. Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 2010;341:c4737.
16. Higgins JPT, Green S; The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5. 1. 0. www. cochrane-handbook. org (accessed Jan 2015).
17. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, et al. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 2010;340:c723.
18. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, et al. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials 2012;13:77-83.
19. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Consort MD. Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;2010:c332.
20. Schroll J, Bero L. The Cochrane Library. Regulatory agencies hold the key to improving Cochrane Reviews of drugs. http:// www. cochranelibrary. com/ editorial/ 10. 1002/ 14651858. ED000098 (accessed Apr 2015).
21. Chan AW. Out of sight but not out of mind: how to search for unpublished clinical trial evidence. BMJ 2012;344:d8013.
22. Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, et al. Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 2017;356:j448.
23. Schroll JB, Bero L, Gøtzsche PC. Searching for unpublished data for Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ 2013;346:f2231.
24. van Driel ML, De Sutter A, De Maeseneer J, et al. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:838-44.
25. Saldanha IJ, Scherer RW, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, et al. Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication. Trials 2016;17:213.
26. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, et al. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A:615-21.
27. Kleweno CP, Bryant WK, Jacir AM, et al. Discrepancies and rates of publication in orthopaedic sports medicine abstracts. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:1875-9. 14.
28. Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, et al. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006;295:1281-7. 15.
29. Klassen TP, Wiebe N, Russell K, et al. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: An example of publication bias. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156:474-9. 16.
30. Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, et al. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. Faseb J 2005;19:673-80.
31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9.
32. Whiting P, Savovi J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225-34.
33. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007;2:e1350.
34. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9.
35. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285:1987-91.
36. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185:263-7.
37. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, et al. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:380-8.
38. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 2012;1:60.