Print

Print


Thought this might be of interest to the group and apropos of a recent discussion about disclosure of COI and reporting clinical trials


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/302/9/977?rss=1



Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials

Sylvain Mathieu, MD; Isabelle Boutron, MD, PhD; David Moher, PhD; Douglas G. Altman, DSc; Philippe Ravaud, MD, PhD

JAMA. 2009;302(9):977-984.

Context  As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.

Objective  To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.

Data Sources and Study Selection  MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.

Data Extraction  For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.

Results  Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 35 (10.8%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).

Conclusion  Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent.






--
Carlos A. Cuello-García, MD
Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Practice-Tecnologico de Monterrey
Cochrane-ITESM coordinator. Professor of Paediatrics and Clinical Research
Avda. Morones Prieto 3000 pte. Col. Doctores. CITES 3er. piso,Monterrey NL, México. CP64710
Phone. +52(81)88882154 & 2141. Fax: +52(81)88882019
www.cmbe.net
http://twitter.com/CharlieNeck
 
The content of this data transmission must not be considered an offer, proposal, understanding or agreement unless it is confirmed in a document signed by a legal representative of ITESM. The content of this data transmission is confidential and is intended to be delivered only to the addressees. Therefore, it shall not be distributed and/or disclosed through any means without the authorization of the original sender. If you are not the addressee, you are forbidden from using it, either totally or partially, for any purpose