Trial registration of abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Meetings 2010–2016: A review of prospective trial registration and selective outcome reporting

Simon W. Chong · Georgina LL Imberger · Amalia Karahalios · Andrew Wang · Millicent Burggraf · Maleck Louis +2 more

6 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

Mandatory prospective trial registration was introduced in 2005 to reduce publication bias and selective outcome reporting. In this study, we measured the proportion of prospective trial registration in randomized controlled trials in the anesthesia literature after this introduction, discrepancies between these trial protocols and subsequent publications, the association between being prospectively registered and reporting positive or negative results, and between being prospectively registered and achieving publication. We reviewed all abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meetings between 2010-2016 and included randomized controlled trials in humans. The abstract conclusions were scored as positive or negative according to predetermined definitions. We conducted a systematic search for trial registration and subsequent publication. Of the 9789 abstracts reviewed, 1070 abstracts were included. 222 (21%) of these abstracts had undergone prospective trial registration. 168/222 (76%) had a corresponding journal publication. 81(48%) had a major discrepancy between registration and publication. 149 (67%) of the abstracts with registration had positive outcomes compared with 616 (73%) of those without (Odds Ratio 0.77; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.06; P = 0.105). Abstracts that had been registered were more likely to proceed to publication than those that had not (Odds Ratio 3.82; 95% CI 2.73 to 5.35; P < 0.001). The proportion of randomized controlled trials being prospectively registered in anesthesia remains low. Discrepancies between registry entries and corresponding journal publications are common. There was no association between prospective trial registration and subsequent positive outcomes. There was a strong association between prospective trial registration and the likelihood of progression to journal publication.

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 — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 2010Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials 2008Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias 2014Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research 2013Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review 2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2009Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials

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.