Changes to design and analysis elements of research plans during randomised controlled trials in Australia

Xanthi Coskinas · Robert John Simes · Andrew James Martin

5 citations0/0 files storedThe Medical Journal of Australia

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 Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and legitimacy of substantive changes to the research plans of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken in Australia. DESIGN: Comparison of methodology and analysis plans for RCTs specified in protocol documents (full protocols, published protocol articles, statistical analysis plans, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [ANZCTR] registration entries) and described in publications of primary results. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: 181 RCTs registered with the ANZCTR, 1 September 2007 - 31 December 2013, for which primary results had been published. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes made to research plan, both overall and by specific item (primary outcome, analysis set, eligibility criteria, sample size, primary analysis method, and treatment arms included in the primary comparison in multi-arm trials); trial characteristics associated with changes. RESULTS: Protocol documents were available for 124 of 181 eligible RCTs (69%; 46 publicly available, 78 provided by trial groups on request). Full audit of RCTs with protocols found clear or probable changes in 111 trials (90%), for 101 of which (91%) it was unclear whether changes had been made blinded to treatment outcomes. After seeking clarification from investigators, changes to 78 trials were confirmed (63%), for 61 of which (78%) changes were made blinded to treatment outcomes. Any change was less likely for trials with publicly available protocols than for trials for which we needed to request protocols (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77). Limited reviews of trials without protocols identified that changes had been made to 42 of 57 trials (74%). CONCLUSION: Changes to RCT study plans in Australia are both frequent and usually made appropriately blinded to treatment outcomes. However, the documentation of changes made to RCT protocols should be formalised to improve transparency.

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 — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2011False-Positive Psychology 2013SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials 2021Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances 2011Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists 2018Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations 2018Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and implications for outcome integrity: a cross-sectional analysis of trials published in high-impact specialty society journals 2010A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007

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