Cargando…
Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the characteristics and publication fate of improperly registered clinical trials submitted to a medical journal (The BMJ) over a 4-year period to identify common types of registration issues and their relation to publication outcomes. DESIGN: Research articles subm...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29453302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020037 |
_version_ | 1783302909134372864 |
---|---|
author | Loder, Elizabeth Loder, Stephen Cook, Sophie |
author_facet | Loder, Elizabeth Loder, Stephen Cook, Sophie |
author_sort | Loder, Elizabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the characteristics and publication fate of improperly registered clinical trials submitted to a medical journal (The BMJ) over a 4-year period to identify common types of registration issues and their relation to publication outcomes. DESIGN: Research articles submitted to The BMJ and identified as unregistered or retrospectively registered by editors were included if they reported outcomes of a clinical trial. Relevant data regarding the trials were then extracted from each paper. Trials were categorised as prospectively registered, registered in an unapproved registry, unregistered or other, and explanations for registration deficiencies were grouped into six categories. We searched PubMed and Google to determine whether, where and when improperly registered studies were subsequently published and whether registration issues were disclosed. RESULTS: 123 research papers reporting apparently unregistered or retrospectively registered clinical trials were identified. 110 studies (89.4%) were retrospectively registered, nine (7.3%) were unregistered, three (2.4%) had been registered in an unapproved registry and one study originally lacking registration details was later discovered to have been prospectively registered. 82 studies (66.6%) were funded entirely or in part by government sources, and only seven studies (5.7%) received funding from industry. Of those papers submitted to The BMJ through the end of 2015, 67 of the 70 papers rejected for registration problems (95.7%) were subsequently published in another journal. The registration problem was disclosed in only 2 (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Improper registration remains a problem, particularly for clinical trials that are government or foundation-funded. Nonetheless, improperly registered trials are almost always published, suggesting that medical journal editors may not actively enforce registration requirements. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5829901 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58299012018-03-01 Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years Loder, Elizabeth Loder, Stephen Cook, Sophie BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the characteristics and publication fate of improperly registered clinical trials submitted to a medical journal (The BMJ) over a 4-year period to identify common types of registration issues and their relation to publication outcomes. DESIGN: Research articles submitted to The BMJ and identified as unregistered or retrospectively registered by editors were included if they reported outcomes of a clinical trial. Relevant data regarding the trials were then extracted from each paper. Trials were categorised as prospectively registered, registered in an unapproved registry, unregistered or other, and explanations for registration deficiencies were grouped into six categories. We searched PubMed and Google to determine whether, where and when improperly registered studies were subsequently published and whether registration issues were disclosed. RESULTS: 123 research papers reporting apparently unregistered or retrospectively registered clinical trials were identified. 110 studies (89.4%) were retrospectively registered, nine (7.3%) were unregistered, three (2.4%) had been registered in an unapproved registry and one study originally lacking registration details was later discovered to have been prospectively registered. 82 studies (66.6%) were funded entirely or in part by government sources, and only seven studies (5.7%) received funding from industry. Of those papers submitted to The BMJ through the end of 2015, 67 of the 70 papers rejected for registration problems (95.7%) were subsequently published in another journal. The registration problem was disclosed in only 2 (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Improper registration remains a problem, particularly for clinical trials that are government or foundation-funded. Nonetheless, improperly registered trials are almost always published, suggesting that medical journal editors may not actively enforce registration requirements. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5829901/ /pubmed/29453302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020037 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. 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 | Medical Publishing and Peer Review Loder, Elizabeth Loder, Stephen Cook, Sophie Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years |
title | Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years |
title_full | Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years |
title_fullStr | Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years |
title_full_unstemmed | Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years |
title_short | Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to The BMJ over 4 years |
title_sort | characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to the bmj over 4 years |
topic | Medical Publishing and Peer Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29453302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020037 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT loderelizabeth characteristicsandpublicationfateofunregisteredandretrospectivelyregisteredclinicaltrialssubmittedtothebmjover4years AT loderstephen characteristicsandpublicationfateofunregisteredandretrospectivelyregisteredclinicaltrialssubmittedtothebmjover4years AT cooksophie characteristicsandpublicationfateofunregisteredandretrospectivelyregisteredclinicaltrialssubmittedtothebmjover4years |