Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer
Open Access
- 9 January 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Annals of Oncology
- Vol. 24 (5), 1238-1244
- https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds636
Abstract
Phase III randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) assess clinically important differences in end points that reflect benefit to patients. Here, we evaluate the quality of reporting of the primary end point (PE) and of toxicity in RCTs for breast cancer. PUBMED was searched from 1995 to 2011 to identify RCTs for breast cancer. Bias in the reporting of the PE and of toxicity was assessed using pre-designed algorithms. Associations of bias with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), changes in the PE compared with information in ClinicalTrials.gov and funding source were evaluated. Of 164 included trials, 33% showed bias in reporting of the PE and 67% in the reporting of toxicity. The PE was more likely to be reported in the concluding statement of the abstract when significant differences favoring the experimental arm were shown; 59% of 92 trials with a negative PE used secondary end points to suggest benefit of experimental therapy. Only 32% of articles indicated the frequency of grade 3 and 4 toxicities in the A positive PE was associated with under-reporting of toxicity. Bias in reporting of outcome is common for studies with negative PEs. Reporting of toxicity is poor, especially for studies with positive PEs.This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review ProcessPLOS ONE, 2010
- Adverse Events in Randomized TrialsArchives of Internal Medicine, 2009
- Reporting of Safety Results in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled TrialsArchives of Internal Medicine, 2009
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting BiasPLOS ONE, 2008
- Outcome selection bias in meta-analysisStatistical Methods in Medical Research, 2005
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT StatementAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2004
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004
- Factors Associated With Failure to Publish Large Randomized Trials Presented at an Oncology MeetingJAMA, 2003
- Balancing benefits and harms in health careBMJ, 2003