Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials
Open Access
- 1 January 2011
- Vol. 1 (2), e000430
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000430
Abstract
Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in ‘Journal Citation Reports 2009’ (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01–03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trialsEmergencias, 2011
- Characteristics of randomised trials on diseases in the digestive system registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: a retrospective analysisBMJ Open, 2011
- A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007BMC Pediatrics, 2010
- Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: Study from highest ranked journalsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Editorial Policies of Pediatric JournalsArchives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2010
- Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled TrialsJAMA, 2009
- Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial resultsEmergencias, 2009
- Relationship between Quality and Editorial Leadership of Biomedical Research Journals: A Comparative Study of Italian and UK JournalsPLOS ONE, 2008
- Consensus Statement on Mandatory Registration of Clinical TrialsAnnals of Surgery, 2007
- Publication bias and clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1987