Can We Depend on Investigators to Identify and Register Randomized Controlled Trials?

Roberta W. Scherer · Pamela C. Sieving · Ann‐Margret Ervin · Kay Dickersin

26 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

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

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: To reduce publication bias, systematic reviewers are advised to search conference abstracts to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in humans and not published in full. We assessed the information provided by authors to aid identification of RCTs for reviews. METHODS: We handsearched the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meeting abstracts for 2004 to 2009 to identify reports of RCTs. We compared our classification with that of authors (requested by ARVO 2004-2006), and authors' report of trial registration (required by ARVO 2007-2009). RESULTS: Authors identified their study as a clinical trial for 169/191 (88%; 95% CI, 84-93) RCTs we identified for 2004, 174/212 (82%; 95% CI, 77-87) for 2005 and 162/215 (75%; 95% CI, 70-81) for 2006. Authors provided registration information for 107/172 (62%; 95% CI, 55-69) RCTs for 2007, 103/153 (67%; 95% CI, 60-75) for 2008, and 126/171 (74%; 95% CI, 67-80) for 2009. Most RCT authors providing a trial register name specified ClinicalTrials.gov (276/312; 88%; 95% CI, 85-92) and provided a valid ClinicalTrials.gov registration number (261/276; 95%; 95% CI, 92-97). Based on information provided by authors, trial registration information would be accessible for 48% (83/172) (95% CI, 41-56) of all ARVO abstracts describing RCTs in 2007, 63% (96/153) (95% CI, 55-70) in 2008, and 70% in 2009 (118/171) (95% CI, 62-76). CONCLUSIONS: Authors of abstracts describing RCTs frequently did not classify them as clinical trials nor comply with reporting trial registration information, as required by the conference organizers. Systematic reviewers cannot rely on authors to identify relevant unpublished trials or report trial registration, if present.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 1986Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.2004Clinical Trial Registration 2003Registering Clinical Trials 1990International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.2004Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 1994Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis 2005Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1)

Cited by

2016Major discrepancies between what clinical trial registries record and paediatric randomised controlled trials publish 2015Using ClinicalTrials.gov to Supplement Information in Ophthalmology Conference Abstracts about Trial Outcomes: A Comparison Study 2020Frequency of Abstracts Presented at Eye and Vision Conferences Being Developed Into Full-Length Publications

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.