Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Clinical Trials of Surgical Interventions

Gerjon Hannink · Hein G. Gooszen · Maroeska Mariet Rovers

101 citations0/0 files storedAnnals of Surgery

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 Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

In Brief Objective: To assess the proportion of registered surgical trials with results published in journals with high-impact factors; compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published papers; and determine whether primary outcome-reporting bias favored significant outcomes. Background: Outcome-reporting bias, that is, the selective reporting of a subset of the original registered outcome measures based on their results, has not yet been studied specifically for surgical trials. Methods: We searched PubMed for reports of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed between 2007 and 2012 in 10 general medical journals and 10 surgical journals with the highest impact factors. For each article included, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form. Results: Of the 327 evaluated surgical trials, registration was lacking for 109 (33%) published papers. Two (2%) of these papers were published in general medical journals and 107 (98%) in surgical journals. Twelve (6%) of the trials were still recruiting patients, and 48 (22%) were registered after completion of the study. A total of 152 trials were registered before the end of the trial with the primary outcome clearly specified. Among these papers, 49% (75 of 152) showed some evidence of discrepancies between outcomes registered and the outcomes published, most often related to omitting or introducing a primary outcome. These discrepancies favored statistically significant results in 28% of the papers. Conclusions: The quality of registration of surgical trials published in surgical journals was inferior to those published in general medical journals. Comparison of the primary outcomes of surgical RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent and appears to be higher than in general medical trials. Outcome-reporting bias has not yet been studied specifically for surgical trials. We assessed the proportion of registered surgical trials with results published in journals with high-impact factors; compared the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published papers; and determined whether primary outcome-reporting bias favored significant outcomes. Comparison of the primary outcomes of surgical randomized controlled trials registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent and appears to be higher than in general medical trials.

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 — 101 citations exist upstream.

References

2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials 2008Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias 2009Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials 2009Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation 2004Clinical Trial Registration 2005Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals 2004Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2002Publishing Protocols of Systematic Reviews

Cited by

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 2018Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations 2015Outcome Discrepancies and Selective Reporting: Impacting the Leading Journals?2018A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research

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.