Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials

English version České info

Background:
Most publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If analyses are selected on the basis of the results, reporting bias may occur. The aims of this study were to review and summarise the evidence from empirical cohort studies that assessed discrepant or selective reporting of analyses in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods and Findings:
A systematic review was conducted and included cohort studies that assessed any aspect of the reporting of analyses of RCTs by comparing different trial documents, e.g., protocol compared to trial report, or different sections within a trial publication. The Cochrane Methodology Register, Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), and PubMed were searched on 5 February 2014. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Twenty-two studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) published between 2000 and 2013 were included. Twenty-two studies reported on discrepancies between information given in different sources. Discrepancies were found in statistical analyses (eight studies), composite outcomes (one study), the handling of missing data (three studies), unadjusted versus adjusted analyses (three studies), handling of continuous data (three studies), and subgroup analyses (12 studies). Discrepancy rates varied, ranging from 7% (3/42) to 88% (7/8) in statistical analyses, 46% (36/79) to 82% (23/28) in adjusted versus unadjusted analyses, and 61% (11/18) to 100% (25/25) in subgroup analyses. This review is limited in that none of the included studies investigated the evidence for bias resulting from selective reporting of analyses. It was not possible to combine studies to provide overall summary estimates, and so the results of studies are discussed narratively.

Conclusions:
Discrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documentation were common, but reasons for these discrepancies were not discussed in the trial reports. To ensure transparency, protocols and statistical analysis plans need to be published, and investigators should adhere to these or explain discrepancies.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials. PLoS Med 11(6): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. HuttonJL, WilliamsonPR (2000) Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies. Appl Stat 49: 359–370.

2. DwanK, GambleC, WilliamsonPR, KirkhamJJ (2013) Reporting Bias G (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS ONE 8: e66844.

3. SongF, ParekhS, HooperL, LokeYK, RyderJ, et al. (2010) Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 14: 1–193.

4. PageMJ, McKenzieJE, ForbesA (2013) Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 66: 524–537.

5. DwanK, AltmanDG, CresswellL, BlundellM, GambleCL, et al. (2011) Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011: MR000031.

6. RosenthalR, DwanK (2013) Comparison of randomized controlled trial registry entries and content of reports in surgery journals. Ann Surg 257: 1007–1015.

7. Kasenda B, Sun X, von Elm E (2013) Planning and reporting of subgroup analyses in randomized trials—between confidence and delusion [abstract]. Cochrane Colloquium 2013; 19–23 September 2013; Quebec, Canada.

8. Maund E, Tendal B, Hróbjartsson A, Jørgensen KJ, Lundh A, et al.. (2013) Publication bias in randomised trials of duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder [abstract]. Cochrane Colloquium 2013; 19–23 September 2013; Quebec, Canada.

9. Stegert M, Kasenda B, von Elm E, Briel M (2013) Reporting of interim analyses, stopping rules, and Data Safety and Monitoring Boards in protocols and publications of discontinued RCTs [abstract]. Cochrane Colloquium 2013; 19–23 September 2013; Quebec, Canada.

10. KasendaB, von ElmEB, YouJ, BlumleA, TomonagaY, et al. (2012) Learning from failure—rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study). BMC Med Res Methodol 12: 131.

11. Al-MarzoukiS, RobertsI, EvansS, MarshallT (2008) Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet. Lancet 372: 201.

12. AssmannSF, PocockSJ, EnosLE, KastenLE (2000) Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 355: 1064–1069.

13. BhandariM, DevereauxPJ, LiP, MahD, LimK, et al. (2006) Misuse of baseline comparison tests and subgroup analyses in surgical trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 447: 247–251.

14. BoonackerCW, HoesAW, van Liere-VisserK, SchilderAG, RoversMM (2011) A comparison of subgroup analyses in grant applications and publications. Am J Epidemiol 174: 219–225.

15. ChanAW, HrobjartssonA, JorgensenKJ, GotzschePC, AltmanDG (2008) Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ a2299.

16. CordobaG, SchwartzL, WoloshinS, BaeH, GotzschePC (2010) Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 341: c3920.

17. HahnS, WilliamsonPR, HuttonJL (2002) Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. J Eval Clin Pract 8: 353–359.

18. HernandezAV, BoersmaE, MurrayGD, HabbemaJD, SteyerbergEW (2006) Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J 151: 257–264.

19. HernandezAV, SteyerbergEW, TaylorGS, MarmarouA, HabbemaJD, et al. (2005) Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 57: 1244–1253.

20. MelanderH, Ahlqvist-RastadJ, MeijerG, BeermannB (2003) Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 326: 1171–1173.

21. MoreiraED, SteinZ, SusserE (2001) Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals. Braz J Med Biol Res 34: 1441–1446.

22. ParkerAB, NaylorCD (2000) Subgroups, treatment effects, and baseline risks: some lessons from major cardiovascular trials. Am Heart J 139: 952–961.

23. RisingK, BacchettiP, BeroL (2008) Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 5: e217.

24. SaquibN, SaquibJ, IoannidisJP (2013) Practices and impact of primary outcome adjustment in randomized controlled trials: meta-epidemiologic study. BMJ 347: f4313.

25. SoaresHP, DanielsS, KumarA, ClarkeM, ScottC, et al. (2004) Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 328: 22–24.

26. SunX, BrielM, BusseJW, YouJJ, AklEA, et al. (2011) The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 342: d1569.

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

28. VedulaSS, LiT, DickersinK (2013) Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin. PLoS Med 10: e1001378.

29. YuLM, ChanAW, HopewellS, DeeksJJ, AltmanDG (2010) Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review. Trials 11: 59.

30. WangR, LagakosSW, WareJH, HunterDJ, DrazenJM (2007) Statistics in medicine—reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 357: 2189–2194.

31. RiverosC, DechartresA, PerrodeauE, HaneefR, BoutronI, et al. (2013) Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med 10: e1001566.

32. BoutronI, DuttonS, RavaudP, AltmanDG (2010) Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303: 2058–2064.

33. SmythRM, KirkhamJJ, JacobyA, AltmanDG, GambleC, et al. (2011) Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ 342: c7153.

34. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (1998) ICH topic E 9: statistical principles for clinical trials. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use.

35. ChanAW, TetzlaffJM, AltmanDG, LaupacisA, GotzschePC, et al. (2013) SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 158: 200–207.

36. SchulzKF, AltmanDG, MoherD (2010) Group C (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340: c332.