Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials - PubMed (original) (raw)
Comparative Study
. 2009 Sep 2;302(9):977-84.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1242.
Affiliations
- PMID: 19724045
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1242
Comparative Study
Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials
Sylvain Mathieu et al. JAMA. 2009.
Erratum in
- JAMA. 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1532
Abstract
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, 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.
Comment in
- Clinical trial registration and publication of randomized controlled trials.
Lockshin MD, Katz PP, Yelin EH. Lockshin MD, et al. JAMA. 2010 Feb 10;303(6):517-8; author reply 518. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.95. JAMA. 2010. PMID: 20145227 No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized clinical trials of surgical interventions.
Hannink G, Gooszen HG, Rovers MM. Hannink G, et al. Ann Surg. 2013 May;257(5):818-23. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182864fa3. Ann Surg. 2013. PMID: 23407296 - Registration rates, adequacy of registration, and a comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials published in surgery journals.
Killeen S, Sourallous P, Hunter IA, Hartley JE, Grady HL. Killeen S, et al. Ann Surg. 2014 Jan;259(1):193-6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318299d00b. Ann Surg. 2014. PMID: 23732270 - Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Orthopaedic Surgical Interventions.
Rongen JJ, Hannink G. Rongen JJ, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Mar 2;98(5):403-9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00400. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016. PMID: 26935463 - Transparency of outcome reporting and trial registration of randomized controlled trials in top psychosomatic and behavioral health journals: A systematic review.
Milette K, Roseman M, Thombs BD. Milette K, et al. J Psychosom Res. 2011 Mar;70(3):205-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.09.015. Epub 2010 Dec 15. J Psychosom Res. 2011. PMID: 21334491 Review. - Registration status and outcome reporting of trials published in core headache medicine journals.
Rayhill ML, Sharon R, Burch R, Loder E. Rayhill ML, et al. Neurology. 2015 Nov 17;85(20):1789-94. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002127. Epub 2015 Oct 16. Neurology. 2015. PMID: 26475691 Review.
Cited by
- Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis.
Pool L, Ruiz Del Portal Luyten C, van der Pluijm RW, Soentjens P, Hanscheid T, Grobusch MP, Visser BJ. Pool L, et al. Malar J. 2024 Sep 30;23(1):293. doi: 10.1186/s12936-024-05115-6. Malar J. 2024. PMID: 39350104 Free PMC article. - Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.
Tran AV, Stadler JK, Ernst Z, Smith CA, Nees D, Hughes GK, Vassar M. Tran AV, et al. BMC Neurol. 2024 Sep 5;24(1):321. doi: 10.1186/s12883-024-03839-1. BMC Neurol. 2024. PMID: 39237894 Free PMC article. - A methodological quality review of citations of randomized controlled trials of diabetes type2 in leading clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews.
Aletaha A, Malekpour MR, Keshtkar AA, Baradaran HR, Sedghi S, Mansoori Y, Hajiani M, Delavari S, Habibi F, Razmgir M, Saeedi S, Soltani A, Nemati-Anaraki L. Aletaha A, et al. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2023 Oct 19;23(1):101-114. doi: 10.1007/s40200-023-01328-9. eCollection 2024 Jun. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2023. PMID: 38932844 Free PMC article. Review. - Supporting study registration to reduce research waste.
Purgar M, Glasziou P, Klanjscek T, Nakagawa S, Culina A. Purgar M, et al. Nat Ecol Evol. 2024 Aug;8(8):1391-1399. doi: 10.1038/s41559-024-02433-5. Epub 2024 Jun 5. Nat Ecol Evol. 2024. PMID: 38839851 Review. - A cross-sectional analysis of reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies in nephrology journals.
Crotty P, Wright CL, Howard H, Smith CA, Nees D, Hughes G, Vassar M. Crotty P, et al. J Nephrol. 2024 Jun 5. doi: 10.1007/s40620-024-01977-w. Online ahead of print. J Nephrol. 2024. PMID: 38837001
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials