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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |