Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials—ESORT)

Abstract Objective To assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were registered were less likely to report positive study findings compared with RCTs that were not registered and whether the association varied by funding source. Design Cross sectional study. Study sample All primary RCTs published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by November 2013. Trial registration was determined based on the report of a trial registration number in published RCTs or the identification of the trial in a search of trial registries. Trials were separated into prospectively and retrospectively registered studies. Main outcome measure Association between trial registration and positive study findings. Results 1122 eligible RCTs were identified, of which 593 (52.9%) were registered and 529 (47.1%) were not registered. Overall, registration was marginally associated with positive study findings (adjusted risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98), even with stratification as prospectively and retrospectively registered trials (0.87, 0.74 to 1.03 and 0.88, 0.78 to 1.00, respectively). The interaction term between overall registration and funding source was marginally statistically significant and relative risk estimates were imprecise (0.75, 0.63 to 0.89 for non-industry funded and 1.03, 0.79 to 1.36 for industry funded, P interaction=0.046). Furthermore, a statistically significant interaction was not maintained in sensitivity analyses. Within each stratum of funding source, relative risk estimates were also imprecise for the association between positive study findings and prospective and retrospective registration. Conclusion Among published RCTs, there was little evidence of a difference in positive study findings between registered and non-registered clinical trials, even with stratification by timing of registration. Relative risk estimates were imprecise in subgroups of non-industry and industry funded trials.

[1]  Karen A Robinson,et al.  Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[2]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Association between randomised trial evidence and global burden of disease: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials—ESORT) , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  D. Altman,et al.  Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  D. Altman,et al.  Association of cardiovascular trial registration with positive study findings: Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials (ESORT). , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[7]  Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , 2004, The Lancet.

[8]  David Moher,et al.  Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. , 2009, JAMA.

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  Reporting of a Publicly Accessible Protocol and Its Association With Positive Study Findings in Cardiovascular Trials (from the Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials [ESORT]). , 2015, American Journal of Cardiology.

[10]  Sergio Sismondo,et al.  Industry sponsorship and research outcome. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  Steven Duffy,et al.  Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? , 2014, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[12]  Nicholas C. Ide,et al.  Issues in the registration of clinical trials. , 2007, JAMA.

[13]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  Nicolas Rasmussen,et al.  Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs , 2009, Trials.

[15]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov and high-impact journals. , 2014, JAMA.

[16]  Ben Goldacre,et al.  Make journals report clinical trials properly , 2016, Nature.

[17]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study , 2016, BMC Medicine.

[18]  Jeanne-Marie Guise,et al.  Reporting Discrepancies Between the ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database and Peer-Reviewed Publications , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.