Journal article
Comparison of randomized controlled trial registry entries and content of reports in surgery journals.
- Rosenthal R Department of Surgery, Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. rrosenthal@uhbs.ch
- Dwan K
- 2013-03-13
Published in:
- Annals of surgery. - 2013
Bibliometrics
General Surgery
Humans
Peer Review, Research
Periodicals as Topic
Publishing
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Registries
Research Design
English
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate discrepancies between trial registry entries and final reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in major general surgical journals.
BACKGROUND
Health care decisions are based on published results in peer-reviewed journals. Mandatory trial registration was introduced to increase transparency and reduce publication and outcome reporting bias.
METHODS
The discrepancy rate between trial registry entries and final reports of all RCTs published during 2010 in the Annals of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery was evaluated.
RESULTS
Of 596 identified studies, 545 were excluded because they were not RCTs or interim reports/secondary analysis of RCTs or because of missing trial registry information.In the remaining 51 RCTs, prospective registration was found in 9.8% (n = 5), registration during trial conduct in 33.3% (n = 17), and retrospective registration in 56.9% (n = 29), respectively.For the primary and secondary outcomes, there was no discrepancy in 54.9% and 33.3%, complete omission in 7.8% and 31.3%, new introduction in 7.8% and 39.2%, a change in definition in 9.8% and 5.8%, downgrading from primary to secondary in 21.6%, and upgrading from secondary to primary in 13.7%. There were few discrepancies in randomization, blinding, and intervention and some in targeted sample size and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
When interpreting the results of surgical RCTs, the possibility of selective reporting, and thus outcome reporting bias, has to be kept in mind. For future trials, prospective registration should be strictly respected with the ultimate goal to increase transparency and contribute to high-level evidence reports for optimal patient care in surgery.
To evaluate discrepancies between trial registry entries and final reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in major general surgical journals.
BACKGROUND
Health care decisions are based on published results in peer-reviewed journals. Mandatory trial registration was introduced to increase transparency and reduce publication and outcome reporting bias.
METHODS
The discrepancy rate between trial registry entries and final reports of all RCTs published during 2010 in the Annals of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery was evaluated.
RESULTS
Of 596 identified studies, 545 were excluded because they were not RCTs or interim reports/secondary analysis of RCTs or because of missing trial registry information.In the remaining 51 RCTs, prospective registration was found in 9.8% (n = 5), registration during trial conduct in 33.3% (n = 17), and retrospective registration in 56.9% (n = 29), respectively.For the primary and secondary outcomes, there was no discrepancy in 54.9% and 33.3%, complete omission in 7.8% and 31.3%, new introduction in 7.8% and 39.2%, a change in definition in 9.8% and 5.8%, downgrading from primary to secondary in 21.6%, and upgrading from secondary to primary in 13.7%. There were few discrepancies in randomization, blinding, and intervention and some in targeted sample size and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
When interpreting the results of surgical RCTs, the possibility of selective reporting, and thus outcome reporting bias, has to be kept in mind. For future trials, prospective registration should be strictly respected with the ultimate goal to increase transparency and contribute to high-level evidence reports for optimal patient care in surgery.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318283cf7f
- PMID 23478520
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/72774
Statistics
Document views: 1
File downloads: