Cargando…

Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are critical to the advancement of medical knowledge. However, the reliability of trial conclusions depends in part on consistency between pre-planned and reported study outcomes. Unfortunately, selective outcome reporting, in which outcomes reported in published manusc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Christopher W, Adams, Amanda, Weaver, Mark A, Schroter, Sara, Misemer, Benjamin S, Schriger, David, Platts-Mills, Timothy F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6549750/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31154313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028694
_version_ 1783424074736730112
author Jones, Christopher W
Adams, Amanda
Weaver, Mark A
Schroter, Sara
Misemer, Benjamin S
Schriger, David
Platts-Mills, Timothy F
author_facet Jones, Christopher W
Adams, Amanda
Weaver, Mark A
Schroter, Sara
Misemer, Benjamin S
Schriger, David
Platts-Mills, Timothy F
author_sort Jones, Christopher W
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are critical to the advancement of medical knowledge. However, the reliability of trial conclusions depends in part on consistency between pre-planned and reported study outcomes. Unfortunately, selective outcome reporting, in which outcomes reported in published manuscripts differ from pre-specified study outcomes, is common. Trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov have the potential to help identify and stop selective outcome reporting during peer review by allowing peer reviewers to compare outcomes between registry entries and submitted manuscripts. However, the persistently high rate of selective outcome reporting among published clinical trials indicates that the current peer review process at most journals does not effectively address the problem of selective outcome reporting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRE-REPORT is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that will test whether providing peer reviewers with a summary of registered, pre-specified primary trial outcomes decreases inconsistencies between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes. Peer reviewed manuscripts describing clinical trial results will be included. Eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal during the study period will comprise each cluster. After an initial control phase, journals will transition to the intervention phase in random order, after which peer reviewers will be emailed registry information consisting of the date of registration and any prospectively defined primary outcomes. Blinded outcome assessors will compare registered and published primary outcomes for all included trials. The primary PRE-REPORT outcome is the presence of a published primary outcome that is consistent with a prospectively defined primary outcome in the study’s trial registry. The primary outcome will be analysed using a mixed effect logistical regression model to compare results between the intervention and control phases. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Cooper Health System Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not meet criteria for human subject research. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41225307; Pre-results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6549750
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65497502019-06-21 Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial Jones, Christopher W Adams, Amanda Weaver, Mark A Schroter, Sara Misemer, Benjamin S Schriger, David Platts-Mills, Timothy F BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are critical to the advancement of medical knowledge. However, the reliability of trial conclusions depends in part on consistency between pre-planned and reported study outcomes. Unfortunately, selective outcome reporting, in which outcomes reported in published manuscripts differ from pre-specified study outcomes, is common. Trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov have the potential to help identify and stop selective outcome reporting during peer review by allowing peer reviewers to compare outcomes between registry entries and submitted manuscripts. However, the persistently high rate of selective outcome reporting among published clinical trials indicates that the current peer review process at most journals does not effectively address the problem of selective outcome reporting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRE-REPORT is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that will test whether providing peer reviewers with a summary of registered, pre-specified primary trial outcomes decreases inconsistencies between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes. Peer reviewed manuscripts describing clinical trial results will be included. Eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal during the study period will comprise each cluster. After an initial control phase, journals will transition to the intervention phase in random order, after which peer reviewers will be emailed registry information consisting of the date of registration and any prospectively defined primary outcomes. Blinded outcome assessors will compare registered and published primary outcomes for all included trials. The primary PRE-REPORT outcome is the presence of a published primary outcome that is consistent with a prospectively defined primary outcome in the study’s trial registry. The primary outcome will be analysed using a mixed effect logistical regression model to compare results between the intervention and control phases. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Cooper Health System Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not meet criteria for human subject research. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41225307; Pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6549750/ /pubmed/31154313 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028694 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Jones, Christopher W
Adams, Amanda
Weaver, Mark A
Schroter, Sara
Misemer, Benjamin S
Schriger, David
Platts-Mills, Timothy F
Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
title Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
title_full Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
title_fullStr Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
title_full_unstemmed Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
title_short Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
title_sort peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the pre-report study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
topic Medical Publishing and Peer Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6549750/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31154313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028694
work_keys_str_mv AT joneschristopherw peerreviewedevaluationofregisteredendpointsofrandomisedtrialstheprereportstudyprotocolforasteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrial
AT adamsamanda peerreviewedevaluationofregisteredendpointsofrandomisedtrialstheprereportstudyprotocolforasteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrial
AT weavermarka peerreviewedevaluationofregisteredendpointsofrandomisedtrialstheprereportstudyprotocolforasteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrial
AT schrotersara peerreviewedevaluationofregisteredendpointsofrandomisedtrialstheprereportstudyprotocolforasteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrial
AT misemerbenjamins peerreviewedevaluationofregisteredendpointsofrandomisedtrialstheprereportstudyprotocolforasteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrial
AT schrigerdavid peerreviewedevaluationofregisteredendpointsofrandomisedtrialstheprereportstudyprotocolforasteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrial
AT plattsmillstimothyf peerreviewedevaluationofregisteredendpointsofrandomisedtrialstheprereportstudyprotocolforasteppedwedgeclusterrandomisedtrial