Cargando…

Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ

OBJECTIVES: Adding, omitting or changing prespecified outcomes can result in bias because it increases the potential for unacknowledged or post hoc revisions of the planned analyses. Journals have adopted initiatives such as requiring the prospective registration of trials and the submission of stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weston, Jennifer, Dwan, Kerry, Altman, Douglas, Clarke, Mike, Gamble, Carrol, Schroter, Sara, Williamson, Paula, Kirkham, Jamie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853983/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27105712
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010075
_version_ 1782430157432160256
author Weston, Jennifer
Dwan, Kerry
Altman, Douglas
Clarke, Mike
Gamble, Carrol
Schroter, Sara
Williamson, Paula
Kirkham, Jamie
author_facet Weston, Jennifer
Dwan, Kerry
Altman, Douglas
Clarke, Mike
Gamble, Carrol
Schroter, Sara
Williamson, Paula
Kirkham, Jamie
author_sort Weston, Jennifer
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Adding, omitting or changing prespecified outcomes can result in bias because it increases the potential for unacknowledged or post hoc revisions of the planned analyses. Journals have adopted initiatives such as requiring the prospective registration of trials and the submission of study protocols to promote the transparency of reporting in clinical trials. The main objective of this feasibility study was to document the frequency and types of outcome discrepancy between prespecified outcomes in the protocol and reported outcomes in trials submitted to The BMJ. METHODS: A review of all 3156 articles submitted to The BMJ between 1 September 2013 and 30 June 2014. Trial registry entries, protocols and trial reports of randomised controlled trials published by The BMJ and a random sample of those rejected were reviewed. Editorial, peer reviewer comments and author responses were also examined to ascertain any reasons for discrepancies. RESULTS: In the study period, The BMJ received 311 trial manuscripts, 21 of which were subsequently published by the journal. In trials published by The BMJ, 27% (89/333) of the prespecified outcomes in the protocol were not reported in the submitted paper and 11% (31/275) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. In the sample of 21 trials rejected by The BMJ, 19% (63/335) of prespecified outcomes went unreported and 14% (45/317) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. None of the reasons provided by published authors were suggestive of outcome reporting bias as the reasons were unrelated to the results. CONCLUSIONS: Mandating the prospective registration of a trial and requesting that a protocol be uploaded when submitting a trial article to a journal has the potential to promote transparency and safeguard the evidence base against outcome reporting biases as a result of outcome discrepancies. Further guidance is needed with regard to documenting reasons for outcome discrepancies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4853983
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48539832016-05-06 Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ Weston, Jennifer Dwan, Kerry Altman, Douglas Clarke, Mike Gamble, Carrol Schroter, Sara Williamson, Paula Kirkham, Jamie BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVES: Adding, omitting or changing prespecified outcomes can result in bias because it increases the potential for unacknowledged or post hoc revisions of the planned analyses. Journals have adopted initiatives such as requiring the prospective registration of trials and the submission of study protocols to promote the transparency of reporting in clinical trials. The main objective of this feasibility study was to document the frequency and types of outcome discrepancy between prespecified outcomes in the protocol and reported outcomes in trials submitted to The BMJ. METHODS: A review of all 3156 articles submitted to The BMJ between 1 September 2013 and 30 June 2014. Trial registry entries, protocols and trial reports of randomised controlled trials published by The BMJ and a random sample of those rejected were reviewed. Editorial, peer reviewer comments and author responses were also examined to ascertain any reasons for discrepancies. RESULTS: In the study period, The BMJ received 311 trial manuscripts, 21 of which were subsequently published by the journal. In trials published by The BMJ, 27% (89/333) of the prespecified outcomes in the protocol were not reported in the submitted paper and 11% (31/275) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. In the sample of 21 trials rejected by The BMJ, 19% (63/335) of prespecified outcomes went unreported and 14% (45/317) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. None of the reasons provided by published authors were suggestive of outcome reporting bias as the reasons were unrelated to the results. CONCLUSIONS: Mandating the prospective registration of a trial and requesting that a protocol be uploaded when submitting a trial article to a journal has the potential to promote transparency and safeguard the evidence base against outcome reporting biases as a result of outcome discrepancies. Further guidance is needed with regard to documenting reasons for outcome discrepancies. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-04-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4853983/ /pubmed/27105712 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010075 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Research Methods
Weston, Jennifer
Dwan, Kerry
Altman, Douglas
Clarke, Mike
Gamble, Carrol
Schroter, Sara
Williamson, Paula
Kirkham, Jamie
Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ
title Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ
title_full Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ
title_fullStr Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ
title_short Feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to The BMJ
title_sort feasibility study to examine discrepancy rates in prespecified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to the bmj
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853983/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27105712
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010075
work_keys_str_mv AT westonjennifer feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj
AT dwankerry feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj
AT altmandouglas feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj
AT clarkemike feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj
AT gamblecarrol feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj
AT schrotersara feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj
AT williamsonpaula feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj
AT kirkhamjamie feasibilitystudytoexaminediscrepancyratesinprespecifiedandreportedoutcomesinarticlessubmittedtothebmj