Do trialists endorse clinical trial registration? Survey of a Pubmed sample

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Despite intense interest in trial registration, there is a wide gap between theoretical postulates on trial registration and its implementation worldwide.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>We aimed to evaluate trialists views about current international guidelines on trial registration, including the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) policies and the Ottawa Statement, as well as their intention to register any future clinical trials they conduct.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified all 40,158 PUBMED-indexed clinical trials published from May 2005 to May 2006 using an advanced search strategy. From a random sample of 500 confirmed clinical trials, corresponding authors with e-mail contact addresses were surveyed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 275 (60%) questionnaires from 45 countries were completed. 31% of the respondents had received only nonindustry funding during the past ten years, while 5% and 61% had received only industry or mixed funding respectively. Approximately two third of participants supported registration of all 20 WHO Data Set items, and endorsed the Ottawa Statement part 1 and part 2. Delayed public disclosure of some essential data in instances where they may be considered sensitive for competitive commercial reasons was supported by 30% of the participants, whereas immediate disclosure was supported by 53%. Only 21% of participants had registered all of their ongoing trials since 2005, while 47% stated that they would provide the 20 WHO Data Set items to a publicly accessible register for all their future clinical trials; a significantly higher proportion of participants who received only nonindustry funding (62%) was found among those who would always provide the 20 WHO items for future trials, compared to 42% of participants who received mixed or only industry funding. Among those who were undecided about endorsing registration. One third of participants expressed a lack of sufficient knowledge as the primary reason.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although disagreement was apparent on certain issues, our findings illustrate that trial registration is gradually becoming part of the current research paradigm internationally. Our results also suggest that researchers require more knowledge to inform their decision to comply with the International standards at this early stage of voluntary trial registration.</p

An Appraisal of the Maternal Mortality Decline in Nepal

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy

We assessed the adequacy of randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration, changes to registration data and reporting completeness for articles in ICMJE journals during 2.5 years after registration requirement policy.For a set of 149 reports of 152 RCTs with ClinicalTrials.gov registration number, published from September 2005 to April 2008, we evaluated the completeness of 9 items from WHO 20-item Minimum Data Set relevant for assessing trial quality. We also assessed changes to the registration elements at the Archive site of ClinicalTrials.gov and compared published and registry data.RCTs were mostly registered before 13 September 2005 deadline (n = 101, 66.4%); 118 (77.6%) started recruitment before and 31 (20.4%) after registration. At the time of registration, 152 RCTs had a total of 224 missing registry fields, most commonly 'Key secondary outcomes' (44.1% RCTs) and 'Primary outcome' (38.8%). More RCTs with post-registration recruitment had missing Minimum Data Set items than RCTs with pre-registration recruitment: 57/118 (48.3%) vs. 24/31 (77.4%) (χ(2) (1) = 7.255, P = 0.007). Major changes in the data entries were found for 31 (25.2%) RCTs. The number of RCTs with differences between registered and published data ranged from 21 (13.8%) for Study type to 118 (77.6%) for Target sample size.ICMJE journals published RCTs with proper registration but the registration data were often not adequate, underwent substantial changes in the registry over time and differed in registered and published data. Editors need to establish quality control procedures in the journals so that they continue to contribute to the increased transparency of clinical trials

Relation between the Global Burden of Disease and Randomized Clinical Trials Conducted in Latin America Published in the Five Leading Medical Journals

Background: Since 1990 non communicable diseases and injuries account for the majority of death and disability-adjusted life years in Latin America. We analyzed the relationship between the global burden of disease and Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) conducted in Latin America that were published in the five leading medical journals.Methodology/Principal Findings: We included all RCTs in humans, exclusively conducted in Latin American countries, and published in any of the following journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. We described the trials and reported the number of RCTs according to the main categories of the global burden of disease. Sixty-six RCTs were identified. Communicable diseases accounted for 38 (57%) reports. Maternal, perinatal, and nutritional conditions accounted for 19 (29%) trials. Non-communicable diseases represent 48% of the global burden of disease but only 14% of reported trials. No trial addressed injuries despite its 18% contribution to the burden of disease in 2000.Conclusions/Significance: A poor correlation between the burden of disease and RCTs publications was found. Non communicable diseases and injuries account for up to two thirds of the burden of disease in Latin America but these topics are seldom addressed in published RCTs in the selected sample of journals. Funding bodies of health research and editors should be aware of the increasing burden of non communicable diseases and injuries occurring in Latin America to ensure that this growing epidemic is not neglected in the research agenda and not affected by publication bias

On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap

Background: International policy suggests that collaborative priority setting (CPS) between researchers and end users of research should shape the research agenda, and can increase capacity to address the research-practice translational gap. There is limited research evidence to guide how this should be done to meet the needs of dynamic healthcare systems. One-off priority setting events and time-lag between decision and action prove problematic. This study illustrates the use of CPS in a UK research collaboration called Collaboration and Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). Methods: Data were collected from a north of England CLAHRC through semi-structured interviews with 28 interviewees and a workshop of key stakeholders (n = 21) including academics, NHS clinicians, and managers. Documentary analysis of internal reports and CLAHRC annual reports for the first two and half years was also undertaken. These data were thematically coded. Results: Methods of CPS linked to the developmental phase of the CLAHRC. Early methods included pre-existing historical partnerships with on-going dialogue. Later, new platforms for on-going discussions were formed. Consensus techniques with staged project development were also used. All methods demonstrated actual or potential change in practice and services. Impact was enabled through the flexibility of research and implementation work streams; ‘matched’ funding arrangements to support alignment of priorities in partner organisations; the size of the collaboration offering a resource to meet project needs; and the length of the programme providing stability and long term relationships. Difficulties included tensions between being responsive to priorities and the possibility of ‘drift’ within project work, between academics and practice, and between service providers and commissioners in the health services. Providing protected ‘matched’ time proved difficult for some NHS managers, which put increasing work pressure on them. CPS is more time consuming than traditional approaches to project development. Conclusions: CPS can produce needs-led projects that are bedded in services using a variety of methods. Contributing factors for effective CPS include flexibility in use and type of available resources, flexible work plans, and responsive leadership. The CLAHRC model provides a translational infrastructure that enables CPS that can impact on healthcare systems