Outcome pre-specification requires sufficient detail to guard against outcome switching in clinical trials: A case study

Trials

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Kahan, Brennan C ^a   Jairath, Vipul ^b,c  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Clinical trial; Outcome reporting bias; Selective outcome reporting

Indexed keywords

ACUTE DISEASE; ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; CLINICAL OUTCOME; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERYTHROCYTE TRANSFUSION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT RESPONSE; UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING; BIOASSAY; CLASSIFICATION; GASTROINTESTINAL HEMORRHAGE; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RECURRENT DISEASE; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL BIAS; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIAS; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; ERYTHROCYTE TRANSFUSION; GASTROINTESTINAL HEMORRHAGE; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RECURRENCE; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK FACTORS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85046300778     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2654-z     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):753.
2. 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(20):2457-65.
3. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.
4. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, Ioannidis JP. An empirical evaluation of multifarious outcomes in pharmacogenetics: beta-2 adrenoceptor gene polymorphisms in asthma treatment. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2006;16(10):705-11.
5. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081.
6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2
7. 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(3):353-9.
8. 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(11):e217. discussion e217
9. 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(20):1963-71.
10. Williamson PR, Gamble C, Altman DG, Hutton JL. Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2005;14(5):515-24.
11. Page MJ, Forbes A, Chau M, Green SE, McKenzie JE. Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e011863.
12. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, et al. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:95-110.
13. Ramagopalan S, Skingsley AP, Handunnetthi L, Klingel M, Magnus D, Pakpoor J, et al. Prevalence of primary outcome changes in clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study. F1000Res. 2014;3:77.
14. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(9):852-60.
15. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K, investigators M. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39-50.
16. Jairath V, Kahan BC, Gray A, Dore CJ, Mora A, Dyer C, et al. Restrictive vs liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized feasibility trial. Transfus Med Rev. 2013;27(3):146-53.
17. Jairath V, Kahan BC, Gray A, Dore CJ, Mora A, James MW, et al. Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9989):137-44.
18. Kahan BC, Jairath V, Murphy MF, Dore CJ. Update on the transfusion in gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER) trial: statistical analysis plan for a cluster-randomised feasibility trial. Trials. 2013;14:206.
19. Laine L, Spiegel B, Rostom A, Moayyedi P, Kuipers EJ, Bardou M, et al. Methodology for randomized trials of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: recommendations from an international consensus conference. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(3):540-50.
20. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13-22.
21. Kahan BC, Jairath V, Dore CJ, Morris TP. The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies. Trials. 2014;15:139.
22. Leyrat C, Caille A, Donner A, Giraudeau B. Propensity scores used for analysis of cluster randomized trials with selection bias: a simulation study. Stat Med. 2013;32(19):3357-72.