Reporting of Methodologic Information on Trial Registries for Quality Assessment: A Study of Trial Records Retrieved from the WHO Search Portal
Open Access
- 31 August 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 5 (8), e12484
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012484
Abstract
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. 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%). 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.This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional AnalysisPLoS Medicine, 2009
- Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled TrialsJAMA, 2009
- Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a surveyTrials, 2009
- 7th Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: Good News for the Transparency of Clinical TrialsCroatian Medical Journal, 2009
- Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocolsBMJ, 2008
- Bias, Spin, and Misreporting: Time for Full Access to Trial Protocols and ResultsPLoS Medicine, 2008
- Registration of Clinical Trials Still Moving Ahead – September 2008 Update to Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical JournalsCroatian Medical Journal, 2008
- Poor Reporting of Scientific Leadership Information in Clinical Trial RegistersPLOS ONE, 2008
- Adverse Event Reporting in Publications Compared With Sponsor Database for Cancer Clinical TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2006
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004