Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals

English version České info

Background:
The US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires results from clinical trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs to be posted at ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 y after trial completion. We compared the timing and completeness of results of drug trials posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals.

Methods and Findings:
We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 27, 2012, for randomized controlled trials of drugs with posted results. For a random sample of these trials, we searched PubMed for corresponding publications. Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and from the published articles for trials with results both posted and published. We assessed the time to first public posting or publishing of results and compared the completeness of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov versus published in journal articles. Completeness was defined as the reporting of all key elements, according to three experts, for the flow of participants, efficacy results, adverse events, and serious adverse events (e.g., for adverse events, reporting of the number of adverse events per arm, without restriction to statistically significant differences between arms for all randomized patients or for those who received at least one treatment dose).

From the 600 trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we randomly sampled 50% (n = 297) had no corresponding published article. For trials with both posted and published results (n = 202), the median time between primary completion date and first results publicly posted was 19 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 30 mo), and the median time between primary completion date and journal publication was 21 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 28 mo). Reporting was significantly more complete at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article for the flow of participants (64% versus 48% of trials, p<0.001), efficacy results (79% versus 69%, p = 0.02), adverse events (73% versus 45%, p<0.001), and serious adverse events (99% versus 63%, p<0.001).

The main study limitation was that we considered only the publication describing the results for the primary outcomes.

Conclusions:
Our results highlight the need to search ClinicalTrials.gov for both unpublished and published trials. Trial results, especially serious adverse events, are more completely reported at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals. PLoS Med 10(12): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. ChalmersI, GlasziouP (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374: 86–89.

2. AntesG, ChalmersI (2003) Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet 361: 978–979.

3. ChalmersI (1990) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263: 1405–1408.

4. EasterbrookPJ, BerlinJA, GopalanR, MatthewsDR (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337: 867–872.

5. LiberatiA (2004) An unfinished trip through uncertainties. BMJ 328: 531.

6. EggerM, SmithGD (1998) Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316: 61–66.

7. HopewellS, LoudonK, ClarkeMJ, OxmanAD, DickersinK (2009) Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009: MR000006.

8. TurnerEH, MatthewsAM, LinardatosE, TellRA, RosenthalR (2008) Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 358: 252–260.

9. IoannidisJP (1998) Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 279: 281–286.

10. HigginsJPT, GreenS, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration

11. ChanAW, AltmanDG (2005) Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330: 753.

12. ChanAW, HrobjartssonA, HaahrMT, GotzschePC, AltmanDG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291: 2457–2465.

13. ChanAW, Krleza-JericK, SchmidI, AltmanDG (2004) Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 171: 735–740.

14. KirkhamJJ, DwanKM, AltmanDG, GambleC, DoddS, et al. (2010) The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 340: c365.

15. (2007) Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. US Public Law 110–85. Washington (District of Columbia): Food and Drug Administration.

16. Clinical trials registries: towards improved access to therapeutic data. Prescrire Int 17: 256–259.

17. TseT, WilliamsRJ, ZarinDA (2009) Reporting “basic results” in ClinicalTrials.gov. Chest 136: 295–303.

18. TseT, WilliamsRJ, ZarinDA (2009) Update on registration of clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Chest 136: 304–305.

19. R Development Core Team (2011). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 28 October 2013.

20. RossJS, MulveyGK, HinesEM, NissenSE, KrumholzHM (2009) Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 6: e1000144 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000144

21. HuicM, MarusicM, MarusicA (2011) Completeness and changes in registered data and reporting bias of randomized controlled trials in ICMJE journals after trial registration policy. PLoS One 6: e25258 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025258

22. WieselerB, KerekesMF, VervoelgyiV, McGauranN, KaiserT (2012) Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications. BMJ 344: d8141.

23. ZarinDA, IdeNC, TseT, HarlanWR, WestJC, et al. (2007) Issues in the registration of clinical trials. JAMA 297: 2112–2120.

24. ZarinDA, KeselmanA (2007) Registering a clinical trial in ClinicalTrials.gov. Chest 131: 909–912.

25. ZarinDA, TseT (2008) Medicine. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials. Science 319: 1340–1342.

26. ZarinDA, TseT, IdeNC (2005) Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med 353: 2779–2787.

27. CaliffRM, ZarinDA, KramerJM, ShermanRE, AberleLH, et al. (2012) Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007–2010. JAMA 307: 1838–1847.

28. ZarinDA, TseT, WilliamsRJ, CaliffRM, IdeNC (2011) The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. N Engl J Med 364: 852–860.

29. GopalRK, YamashitaTE, ProchazkaAV (2012) Research without results: inadequate public reporting of clinical trial results. Contemp Clin Trials 33: 486–491.

30. NguyenTA, DechartresA, BelgherbiS, RavaudP (2013) Public availability of results of trials assessing cancer drugs in the United States. J Clin Oncol 31: 2998–3003.

31. PrayleAP, HurleyMN, SmythAR (2012) Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ 344: d7373.

32. ShamliyanT (2010) Reporting of results of interventional studies by the information service of the National Institutes of Health. Clin Pharmacol 2: 169–176.

33. PitrouI, BoutronI, AhmadN, RavaudP (2009) Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 169: 1756–1761.

34. MathieuS, ChanAW, RavaudP (2013) Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLoS ONE 8: e59910 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059910

35. SchulzKF, AltmanDG, MoherD (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152: 726–732.

36. TurnerL, ShamseerL, AltmanDG, SchulzKF, MoherD (2012) Does use of the CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 1: 60.

37. IoannidisJPA, EvansSJW, GøtzschePC, O'NeillRT, AltmanDG, et al. (2004) Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 141: 781–788.

38. ReveizL, ChanA-W, Krleža-JerićK, GranadosCE, PinartM, et al. (2010) Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO Search Portal. PLoS One 5: e12484 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012484