Nalazite se na CroRIS probnoj okolini. Ovdje evidentirani podaci neće biti pohranjeni u Informacijskom sustavu znanosti RH. Ako je ovo greška, CroRIS produkcijskoj okolini moguće je pristupi putem poveznice www.croris.hr
izvor podataka: crosbi

Changes to registration elements and results in a cohort of Clinicaltrials.gov trials were not reflected in published articles (CROSBI ID 222192)

Prilog u časopisu | izvorni znanstveni rad | međunarodna recenzija

Pranić, Shelly ; Marušić, Ana Changes to registration elements and results in a cohort of Clinicaltrials.gov trials were not reflected in published articles // Journal of clinical epidemiology, 70 (2016), 26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.07.007

Podaci o odgovornosti

Pranić, Shelly ; Marušić, Ana

engleski

Changes to registration elements and results in a cohort of Clinicaltrials.gov trials were not reflected in published articles

OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness of legislative initiatives to stimulate public registration of trial results, we assessed adherence to protocol and results reporting, changes to registry, and publication data for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) after introduction of Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act (FDAAA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study of a cohort of ClinicalTrials.gov registered FDAAA-covered RCTs found through ClinicalTrials.gov between 2009 and 2012 and data from corresponding publications. WHO Minimum Data Set items were abstracted by one author and verified by the other author. RESULTS: Among 81 eligible trials, most were industry-funded, with a drug intervention in parallel assignment. Secondary outcomes at the initial and last registration were omitted for 17% and 19.7% of RCTs, respectively. RCT registration changes mostly involved scientific title (18.8%). Inclusion criteria omission was most common (88%) in publications. Inferential statistical methods for primary and secondary outcomes matched between registry and publication for 53.4% and 28.6% of RCTs, respectively. Serious and other adverse events (AEs) that were absent for 23.8% and 4.8% of RCTs, respectively, were published as nonoccurring. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies remain relatively high between registered and published outcomes, particularly regarding registered omissions in publications and concomitant reporting, nature of statistical method used, and reporting of AEs. This seriously undermines transparency of clinical trials and needs immediate attention of all stakeholders in health research.

Bias (epidemiology) ; Databases ; Factual ; Drug side effects ; Randomized controlled trials as topic ; Reporting

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

Podaci o izdanju

70

2016.

26-37

objavljeno

0895-4356

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.07.007

Povezanost rada

Temeljne medicinske znanosti, Javno zdravstvo i zdravstvena zaštita, Biologija

Poveznice
Indeksiranost