Reporting of Methodologic Information on Trial Registries for Quality Assessment: A Study of Trial Records Retrieved from the WHO Search Portal

Background: Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, their reporting is often suboptimal. Trial registries have the potential to contribute important methodologic information for critical appraisal of study results. Methods and Findings: The objective of the study was to evaluate the reporting of key methodologic study characteristics in trial registries. We identified a random sample (n = 265) of actively recruiting RCTs using the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in 2008. We assessed the reporting of relevant domains from the Cochrane Collaboration’s ‘Risk of bias’ tool and other key methodological aspects. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of registry records with adequate reporting of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and trial outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed each record. Weighted overall proportions in the ICTRP search portal for adequate reporting of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (including and excluding open label RCT) and primary outcomes were 5.7% (95% CI 3.0–8.4%), 1.4% (0–2.8%), 41% (35–47%), 8.4% (4.1–13%), and 66% (60–72%), respectively. The proportion of adequately reported RCTs was higher for registries that used specific methodological fields for describing methods of randomization and allocation concealment compared to registries that did not. Concerning other key methodological aspects, weighted overall proportions of RCTs with adequately reported items were as follows: eligibility criteria (81%), secondary outcomes (46%), harm (5%) follow-up duration (62%), description of the interventions (53%) and sample size calculation (1%). Conclusions: Trial registries currently contain limited methodologic information about registered RCTs. In order to permit adequate critical appraisal of trial results reported in journals and registries, trial registries should consider requesting details on key RCT methods to complement journal publications. Full protocols remain the most comprehensive source of methodologic information and should be made publicly available

Obstacles to researching the researchers: A case study of the ethical challenges of undertaking methodological research investigating the reporting of randomised controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent cohort studies of randomised controlled trials have provided evidence of within-study selective reporting bias; where statistically significant outcomes are more likely to be more completely reported compared to non-significant outcomes. Bias resulting from selective reporting can impact on meta-analyses, influencing the conclusions of systematic reviews, and in turn, evidence based clinical practice guidelines.</p> <p>In 2006 we received funding to investigate if there was evidence of within-study selective reporting in a cohort of RCTs submitted to New Zealand Regional Ethics Committees in 1998/99. This research involved accessing ethics applications, their amendments and annual reports, and comparing these with corresponding publications. We did not plan to obtain informed consent from trialists to view their ethics applications for practical and scientific reasons.</p> <p>In November 2006 we sought ethical approval to undertake the research from our institutional ethics committee. The Committee declined our application on the grounds that we were not obtaining informed consent from the trialists to view their ethics application. This initiated a seventeen month process to obtain ethical approval. This publication outlines what we planned to do, the issues we encountered, discusses the legal and ethical issues, and presents some potential solutions.</p> <p>Discussion and conclusion</p> <p>Methodological research such as this has the potential for public benefit and there is little or no harm for the participants (trialists) in undertaking it. Further, in New Zealand, there is freedom of information legislation, which in this circumstance, unambiguously provided rights of access and use of the information in the ethics applications. The decision of our institutional ethics committee defeated this right and did not recognise the nature of this observational research.</p> <p>Methodological research, such as this, can be used to develop processes to improve quality in research reporting. Recognition of the potential benefit of this research in the broader research community, and those who sit on ethics committees, is perhaps needed. In addition, changes to the ethical review process which involve separation between those who review proposals to undertake methodological research using ethics applications, and those with responsibility for reviewing ethics applications for trials, should be considered. Finally, we contend that the research community could benefit from quality improvement approaches used in allied sectors.</p

Opinions on registering trial details: a survey of academic researchers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a set of items related to study design and administrative information that should build the minimum set of data in a study register. A more comprehensive data set for registration is currently developed by the Ottawa Group. Since nothing is known about the attitudes of academic researchers towards prospective study registration, we surveyed academic researchers about their opinion regarding the registration of study details proposed by the WHO and the Ottawa Group.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a web-based survey of academic researchers currently running an investigator-initiated clinical study which is registered with clinicaltrials.gov. In July 2006 we contacted 1299 principal investigators of clinical studies by e-mail explaining the purpose of the survey and a link to access a 52-item questionnaire based on the proposed minimum data set by the Ottawa Group. Two reminder e-mails were sent each two weeks apart. Association between willingness to disclose study details and study phase was assessed using the chi-squared test for trend. To explore the potential influence of non-response bias we used logistic regression to assess associations between factors associated with non-response and the willingness to register study details.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall response was low as only 282/1299 (22%) principal investigators participated in the survey. Disclosing study documents, in particular the study protocol and financial agreements, was found to be most problematic with only 31% of respondents willing to disclose these publicly. Consequently, only 34/282 (12%) agreed to disclose all details proposed by the Ottawa Group. Logistic regression indicated no association between characteristics of non-responders and willingness to disclose details.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Principal investigators of non-industry sponsored studies are reluctant to disclose all data items proposed by the Ottawa Group. Disclosing the study protocol and financial agreements was found to be most problematic. Future discussions on trial registration should not only focus on industry but also on academic researchers.</p

Review and publication of protocol submissions to Trials - what have we learned in 10 years?

Abstract Trials has 10 years of experience in providing open access publication of protocols for randomised controlled trials. In this editorial, the senior editors and editors-in-chief of Trials discuss editorial issues regarding managing trial protocol submissions, including the content and format of the protocol, timing of submission, approaches to tracking protocol amendments, and the purpose of peer reviewing a protocol submission. With the clarification and guidance provided, we hope we can make the process of publishing trial protocols more efficient and useful to trial investigators and readers

Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Joseph Ross and colleagues examine publication rates of clinical trials and find low rates of publication even following registration in Clinicaltrials.gov

Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Registration of clinical trials has been introduced largely to reduce bias toward statistically significant results in the trial literature. Doubts remain about whether advance registration alone is an adequate measure to reduce selective publication, selective outcome reporting, and biased design. One of the first areas of medicine in which registration was widely adopted was oncology, although the bulk of registered oncology trials remain unpublished. The net influence of registration on the literature remains untested. This study compares the prevalence of favorable results and conclusions among published reports of registered and unregistered randomized controlled trials of new oncology drugs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study of published original research articles reporting clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of drugs newly approved for antimalignancy indications by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2000 through 2005. Drugs receiving first-time approval for indications in oncology were identified using the FDA web site and Thomson Centerwatch. Relevant trial reports were identified using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Evidence of advance trial registration was obtained by a search of clinicaltrials.gov, WHO, ISRCTN, NCI-PDQ trial databases and corporate trial registries, as well as articles themselves. Data on blinding, results for primary outcomes, and author conclusions were extracted independently by two coders. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified associations between favorable results and conclusions and independent variables including advance registration, study design characteristics, and industry sponsorship.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 137 original research reports from 115 distinct randomized trials assessing 25 newly approved drugs for treating cancer, the 54 publications describing data from trials registered prior to publication were as likely to report statistically significant efficacy results and reach conclusions favoring the test drug (for results, OR = 1.77; 95% CI = 0.87 to 3.61) as reports of trials not registered in advance. In multivariate analysis, reports of prior registered trials were again as likely to favor the test drug (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.54 to 3.08); large sample sizes and surrogate outcome measures were statistically significant predictors of favorable efficacy results at p < 0.05. Subgroup analysis of the main reports from each trial (n = 115) similarly indicated that registered trials were as likely to report results favoring the test drug as trials not registered in advance (OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.44 to 2.80), and also that large trials and trials with nonstringent blinding were significantly more likely to report results favoring the test drug.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Trial registration alone, without a requirement for full reporting of research results, does not appear to reduce a bias toward results and conclusions favoring new drugs in the clinical trials literature. Our findings support the inclusion of full results reporting in trial registers, as well as protocols to allow assessment of whether results have been completely reported.</p

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials

Deficiencies in the transfer and availability of clinical trials evidence: A review of existing systems and standards

Background: Decisions concerning drug safety and efficacy are generally based on pivotal evidence provided by clinical trials. Unfortunately, finding the relevant clinical trials is difficult and their results are only available in text-based reports. Systematic reviews aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence in a specific area, but may not provide the data required for decision making. Methods: We review and analyze the existing information systems and standards for aggregate level clinical trials information from the perspective of systematic review and evidence-based decision making. Results: The technology currently used has major shortcomings, which cause deficiencies in the transfer, traceability and availability of clinical trials information. Specifically, data available to decision makers is insufficiently structured, and consequently the decisions cannot be properly traced back to the underlying evidence. Regulatory submission, trial publication, trial registration, and systematic review produce unstructured datasets that are insufficient for supporting evidence-based decision making. Conclusions: The current situation is a hindrance to policy decision makers as it prevents fully transparent decision making and the development of more advanced decision support systems. Addressing the identified deficiencies would enable more efficient, informed, and transparent evidence-based medical decision making

SMARTphone-based, early cardiac REHABilitation in patients with acute coronary syndromes [SMART-REHAB Trial]: A randomized controlled trial protocol

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: There are well-documented treatment gaps in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and no clear guidelines to assist early physical activity after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Smartphone technology may provide an innovative platform to close these gaps. This paper describes the study design of a randomized controlled trial assessing whether a smartphone-based secondary prevention program can facilitate early physical activity and improve cardiovascular health in patients with ACS. Methods: We have developed a multi-faceted, patient-centred smartphone-based secondary prevention program emphasizing early physical activity with a graduated walking program initiated on discharge from ACS admission. The program incorporates; physical activity tracking through the smartphone's accelerometer with interactive feedback and goal setting; a dynamic dashboard to review and optimize cardiovascular risk factors; educational messages delivered twice weekly; a photographic food diary; pharmacotherapy review; and support through a short message service. The primary endpoint of the trial is change in exercise capacity, as measured by the change in six-minute walk test distance at 8-weeks when compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints include improvements in cardiovascular risk factor status, psychological well-being and quality of life, medication adherence, uptake of cardiac rehabilitation and re-hospitalizations. Discussion: This randomized controlled trial will use a smartphone-phone based secondary prevention program to emphasize early physical activity post-ACS. It will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and utility of this innovative platform in closing the treatment gaps in secondary prevention. Trial registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on April 4, 2016. The registration number is ACTRN12616000426482