The Quality of Registration of Clinical Trials: Still a Problem

Roderik F. Viergever, Ghassan Karam, Andreas Alois Reis, Davina Ghersi

2014-01-10articlePLoS ONE141 citationsgold

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of clinical trials registration include improved transparency on clinical trials for healthcare workers and patients, increased accountability of trialists, the potential to address publication bias and selective reporting, and possibilities for research collaboration and prioritization. However, poor quality of information in registered records of trials has been found to undermine these benefits in the past. Trialists' increasing experience with trial registration and recent developments in registration systems may have positively affected data quality. This study was conducted to investigate whether the quality of registration has improved. METHODS: We repeated a study from 2009, using the same methods and the same research team. A random sample of 400 records of clinical trials that were registered between 01/01/2012 and 01/01/2013 was taken from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and assessed for the quality of information on 1) contact details, 2) interventions and 3) primary outcomes. Results were compared to the equivalent assessments from our previous study. RESULTS: There was a small and not statistically significant increase from 81.0% to 85.5% in the percentage of records that provided a name of a contact person. There was a significant increase from 68.7% to 74.9% in the number of records that provided either an email address or a telephone number. There was a significant increase from 44.2% to 51.9% in the number of intervention arms that were complete in registering intervention specifics. There was a significant increase from 38.2% to 57.6% in the number of primary outcomes that were specific measures with a meaningful timeframe. Approximately half of all trials continued to be retrospectively registered. DISCUSSION: There have been small but significant improvements in the quality of registration since 2009. Important problems with quality remain and continue to constitute an impediment to the meaningful utilization of registered trial information.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 141 citations exist upstream.

References

2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

2013SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

2009Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials

2010Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice

2011The Quality of Registration of Clinical Trials

Cited by

2016When are clinical trials registered? An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration

2015Is Mandatory Prospective Trial Registration Working to Prevent Publication of Unregistered Trials and Selective Outcome Reporting? An Observational Study of Five Psychiatry Journals That Mandate Prospective Clinical Trial Registration

2016Improving transparency and reproducibility through registration: The status of intervention trials published in clinical psychology journals.

2018Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations

2015Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting

2022Clinical trial registration was associated with lower risk of bias compared with non-registered trials among trials included in systematic reviews

2018Prospective registration trends, reasons for retrospective registration and mechanisms to increase prospective registration compliance: descriptive analysis and survey