Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Problems in the reporting of acne clinical trials: a spot check from the 2009 Annual Evidence Update on Acne Vulgaris

By John R. Ingram, Douglas J. C. Grindlay and Hywel C. Williams

Abstract

In the course of producing the 2009 NHS Evidence - skin disorders Annual Evidence Update on Acne Vulgaris, 25 randomised controlled trials were examined. From these, at least 12 potentially serious problems of trial reporting were identified. Several trials concluded no effect of a treatment yet they were insufficiently powered to exclude potentially useful benefits. There were examples of duplicate publication and "salami publication", as well as two trials being combined and reported as one. In some cases, an incorrect "within-groups" statistical comparison was made and one trial report omitted original efficacy data and included only P values. Both of the non-inferiority studies examined failed to pre-specify a non-inferiority margin. Trials reported as "double-blind" compared treatments that were dissimilar in appearance or had differing adverse effect profiles. In one case an intention-to-treat analysis was not performed and there was a failure to account for all of the randomized participants. Trial results were made to sound more impressive by selective outcome reporting, emphasizing the statistical significance of treatment effects that were clinically insignificant, and by the use of larger-sounding odds ratios rather than rate ratios for common events. Most of the reporting problems could have been avoided by use of the CONSORT guidelines and prospective trial registration on a public clinical trials database

Topics: RL
Publisher: BioMed Central
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:http://orca.cf.ac.uk:84987
Sorry, our data provider has not provided any external links therefore we are unable to provide a link to the full text.

Suggested articles


To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.