Adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies in oncology journals: A cross-sectional review

BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 104-110

  Wayant, Cole ^a   Moore, Gretchan ^a   Hoelscher, Mark ^a   Cook, Courtney ^a   Vassar, Matt ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

oncology

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; EDITOR; HUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ONCOLOGY; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REGISTER; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REGISTRIES;

EID: 85057549081     PISSN: 2515446X     EISSN: 25154478     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110855     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Bonnot B, Yavchitz A, Mantz J, et al. Selective primary outcome reporting in high-impact journals of anaesthesia and pain. Br J Anaesth 2016;117:542-3.
2. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, et al. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010;8:24.
3. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, et al. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336:1472-4.
4. Helfer B, Prosser A, Samara MT, et al. Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination. BMC Med 2015;13:82.
5. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, et al. The EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines: helping to achieve high standards in reporting health research studies. Maturitas 2009;63:4-6.
6. Grellety T, Petit-Monéger A, Diallo A, et al. Quality of reporting of phase II trials: a focus on highly ranked oncology journals. Ann Oncol 2014;25:536-41.
7. Maillet D, Blay JY, You B, et al. The reporting of adverse events in oncology phase III trials: a comparison of the current status versus the expectations of the EORTC members. Ann Oncol 2016;27:192-8.
8. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials 2010;11:32.
9. Péron J, Pond GR, Gan HK, et al. Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:982-9.
10. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, et al. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One 2013;8:e83138.
11. Viergever RF, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLoS One 2011;6:e14701.
12. Viergever RF, Karam G, Reis A, et al. The quality of registration of clinical trials: still a problem. PLoS One 2014;9:e84727.
13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:MR000035.
14. Su CX, Han M, Ren J, et al. Empirical evidence for outcome reporting bias in randomized clinical trials of acupuncture: comparison of registered records and subsequent publications. Trials 2015;16:28.
15. Clinical Trial Registration. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). http: //www. icmje. org/ recommendations/ browse/ publishing-and-editorial-issues/ clinical-trial-registration. html (accessed 20 Oct 2017).
16. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/E.C.
17. FDAAA for NIH grantees: the basics. https:// grants. nih. gov/ clinicaltrials_ fdaaa/ the-basics. htm# whatisFDAAA (accessed 3 May 2017).
18. Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the 'Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature' or the SAMPL Guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:5-9.
19. Wayant C, Smith C, Sims M, et al. Hematology journals do not sufficiently adhere to reporting guidelines: a systematic review. J Thromb Haemost 2017;15:608-17.
20. Sims MT, Henning NM, Wayant CC, et al. Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of 'Instructions for Authors'. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2016;24:137.
21. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Internet CLM, et al. and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons 2014.
22. McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, et al. Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters. Health Info Libr J 2009;26:187-202.
23. Equator Network. https://www. equator-network. org/ (accessed 17 Apr 2017).
24. Sims MT, Checketts JX, Wayant C, et al. Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: a metaepidemiological study of journals' instructions for authors. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2018;16:55-65.
25. Zer A, Prince RM, Amir E, et al. Forty years of randomized trials in advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS): Endpoint selection, surrogacy and quality of reporting. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:10513.
26. Koller C, Khan S, Holmes J, et al. Quality of systematic review and meta-analysis abstracts in oncology journals. Cancer Treat Res Commun 2016;9:70-4.
27. Sivendran S, Newport KB, Albert A, et al. Reporting quality of abstracts in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:6584.
28. Chhapola V, Tiwari S, Brar R, et al. An interrupted time series analysis showed suboptimal improvement in reporting quality of trial abstract. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;71:11-17.
29. Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, et al. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:387-92.
30. Bariani GM, de Celis Ferrari AC, Precivale M, et al. Sample Size Calculation in Oncology Trials: Quality of Reporting and Implications for Clinical Cancer Research. Am J Clin Oncol 2015;38:570-4.
31. Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, et al. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013;24:1238-44.
32. Sim I, Chan AW, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. Clinical trial registration: transparency is the watchword. Lancet 2006;367:1631-3.
33. The EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research). http://www. equator-network. org/ (accessed 15 Aug 2017).
34. EQUATOR Oncology. 2017. http:// www. equator-network. org/ library/ equator-oncology/ (accessed 5 Oct 2017).
35. You B, Gan HK, Pond G, et al. Consistency in the analysis and reporting of primary end points in oncology randomized controlled trials from registration to publication: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:210-6.
36. Wayant C, Scheckel C, Hicks C, et al. Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review. PLoS One 2017;12:e0178379.
37. Hopewell S, Hirst A, Collins GS, et al. Reporting of participant flow diagrams in published reports of randomized trials. Trials 2011;12:253.
38. Toulmonde M, Bellera C, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, et al. Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the treatment of sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1204-9.