Clinical trial registries are of minimal use for identifying selective outcome and analysis reporting

Susan L. Norris, Haley K. Holmer, Rongwei (Rochelle) Fu, Lauren A. Ogden, Meera S. Viswanathan, Ahmed M. Abou-Setta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine selective outcome reporting (SOR) and selective analysis reporting (SAR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore the usefulness of trial registries for identifying SOR and SAR. Study Design and Setting: We selected one "index outcome" for each of three comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) of pharmacotherapy and extracted data on this outcome from trial registries and from study publications. Results: Among 50 RCTs published since 2005 and reporting the index outcome, only 50% were listed in registries; 90% of RCTs were assessed as having SOR or SAR. The index outcome in the registry was different from that in the publication in 75% of trials in two CERs, and not specified at all in the third. Reported outcomes and analyses were not consistent between the publication's methods section and the results section in 33% and 46% of the two CERs where the index outcome was a benefit. There were no statistically significant predictors of SOR and SAR in our small sample where some predictors lacked variability. Conclusion: The SOR and SAR were frequent in this pilot study, and the most common type of SOR was the publication of outcomes that were not pre-specified. Trial registries were of little use in identifying SOR and of no use in identifying SAR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)273-284
Number of pages12
JournalResearch Synthesis Methods
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2014

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Randomized controlled trials
  • Selective analysis reporting
  • Selective outcome reporting
  • Systematic reviews
  • Trial registries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Clinical trial registries are of minimal use for identifying selective outcome and analysis reporting. / Norris, Susan L.; Holmer, Haley K.; Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle); Ogden, Lauren A.; Viswanathan, Meera S.; Abou-Setta, Ahmed M.

In: Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 5, No. 3, 01.09.2014, p. 273-284.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Norris, Susan L. ; Holmer, Haley K. ; Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle) ; Ogden, Lauren A. ; Viswanathan, Meera S. ; Abou-Setta, Ahmed M. / Clinical trial registries are of minimal use for identifying selective outcome and analysis reporting. In: Research Synthesis Methods. 2014 ; Vol. 5, No. 3. pp. 273-284.
@article{8494633e81e34d87938908fa386d8742,
title = "Clinical trial registries are of minimal use for identifying selective outcome and analysis reporting",
abstract = "Objective: This study aimed to examine selective outcome reporting (SOR) and selective analysis reporting (SAR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore the usefulness of trial registries for identifying SOR and SAR. Study Design and Setting: We selected one {"}index outcome{"} for each of three comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) of pharmacotherapy and extracted data on this outcome from trial registries and from study publications. Results: Among 50 RCTs published since 2005 and reporting the index outcome, only 50{\%} were listed in registries; 90{\%} of RCTs were assessed as having SOR or SAR. The index outcome in the registry was different from that in the publication in 75{\%} of trials in two CERs, and not specified at all in the third. Reported outcomes and analyses were not consistent between the publication's methods section and the results section in 33{\%} and 46{\%} of the two CERs where the index outcome was a benefit. There were no statistically significant predictors of SOR and SAR in our small sample where some predictors lacked variability. Conclusion: The SOR and SAR were frequent in this pilot study, and the most common type of SOR was the publication of outcomes that were not pre-specified. Trial registries were of little use in identifying SOR and of no use in identifying SAR.",
keywords = "Bias, Randomized controlled trials, Selective analysis reporting, Selective outcome reporting, Systematic reviews, Trial registries",
author = "Norris, {Susan L.} and Holmer, {Haley K.} and Fu, {Rongwei (Rochelle)} and Ogden, {Lauren A.} and Viswanathan, {Meera S.} and Abou-Setta, {Ahmed M.}",
year = "2014",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jrsm.1113",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "273--284",
journal = "Research Synthesis Methods",
issn = "1759-2879",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical trial registries are of minimal use for identifying selective outcome and analysis reporting

AU - Norris, Susan L.

AU - Holmer, Haley K.

AU - Fu, Rongwei (Rochelle)

AU - Ogden, Lauren A.

AU - Viswanathan, Meera S.

AU - Abou-Setta, Ahmed M.

PY - 2014/9/1

Y1 - 2014/9/1

N2 - Objective: This study aimed to examine selective outcome reporting (SOR) and selective analysis reporting (SAR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore the usefulness of trial registries for identifying SOR and SAR. Study Design and Setting: We selected one "index outcome" for each of three comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) of pharmacotherapy and extracted data on this outcome from trial registries and from study publications. Results: Among 50 RCTs published since 2005 and reporting the index outcome, only 50% were listed in registries; 90% of RCTs were assessed as having SOR or SAR. The index outcome in the registry was different from that in the publication in 75% of trials in two CERs, and not specified at all in the third. Reported outcomes and analyses were not consistent between the publication's methods section and the results section in 33% and 46% of the two CERs where the index outcome was a benefit. There were no statistically significant predictors of SOR and SAR in our small sample where some predictors lacked variability. Conclusion: The SOR and SAR were frequent in this pilot study, and the most common type of SOR was the publication of outcomes that were not pre-specified. Trial registries were of little use in identifying SOR and of no use in identifying SAR.

AB - Objective: This study aimed to examine selective outcome reporting (SOR) and selective analysis reporting (SAR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore the usefulness of trial registries for identifying SOR and SAR. Study Design and Setting: We selected one "index outcome" for each of three comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) of pharmacotherapy and extracted data on this outcome from trial registries and from study publications. Results: Among 50 RCTs published since 2005 and reporting the index outcome, only 50% were listed in registries; 90% of RCTs were assessed as having SOR or SAR. The index outcome in the registry was different from that in the publication in 75% of trials in two CERs, and not specified at all in the third. Reported outcomes and analyses were not consistent between the publication's methods section and the results section in 33% and 46% of the two CERs where the index outcome was a benefit. There were no statistically significant predictors of SOR and SAR in our small sample where some predictors lacked variability. Conclusion: The SOR and SAR were frequent in this pilot study, and the most common type of SOR was the publication of outcomes that were not pre-specified. Trial registries were of little use in identifying SOR and of no use in identifying SAR.

KW - Bias

KW - Randomized controlled trials

KW - Selective analysis reporting

KW - Selective outcome reporting

KW - Systematic reviews

KW - Trial registries

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939203326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939203326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jrsm.1113

DO - 10.1002/jrsm.1113

M3 - Article

C2 - 26052852

AN - SCOPUS:84939203326

VL - 5

SP - 273

EP - 284

JO - Research Synthesis Methods

JF - Research Synthesis Methods

SN - 1759-2879

IS - 3

ER -