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