Cargando…

2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent of publication bias in anesthesia and to evaluate the characteristics of studies that are registered and unpublished. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the advanced search option and the key word “anesthesia” to identify a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nair, Singh, Johns, Davis, Delphin, Ellise, Leff, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6799412/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.310
_version_ 1783460278724198400
author Nair, Singh
Johns, Davis
Delphin, Ellise
Leff, Jonathan
author_facet Nair, Singh
Johns, Davis
Delphin, Ellise
Leff, Jonathan
author_sort Nair, Singh
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent of publication bias in anesthesia and to evaluate the characteristics of studies that are registered and unpublished. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the advanced search option and the key word “anesthesia” to identify anesthesia related studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. For the purpose of this analysis we have randomly selected 50% of the anesthesia related studies from the year 2008–2013. We have collected information pertaining to drug/device study, origin, type, design, subspecialty, enrollment target, anesthesia type, and adult/ pediatric, sponsored/ investigator initiated, population studied and start and end date. Studies with an ongoing, terminated, or unknown status were excluded from the analysis. For results, we initially searched the results section associated with each study; also we searched for any publication link at the study result area of the registry. For studies with no results and publication links we searched on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase by trial registration number, study title, and investigators name for matching manuscripts. In addition, we also analyzed the proportion of studies with positive and negative conclusions. We used descriptive and univariate statistics to report the results. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, 5448 studies were identified within the queried timeframe. We have included 2649 studies in our final analysis and detailed analysis were performed for 1778 studies with the status “completed.” The mean, standard deviation of subjects enrolled in completed trials was 392.47±6378. Only 162 (9.9%) studies registered were in the pediatric population, and 1616 (90.9%) were in the adult population. Finally, of the reviewed studies, 1486 (83.6%) were investigator-initiated, 207 (11.6%) were sponsored, and 85 (4.8%) were registered as collaborated studies. Among the completed studies only 296 (16.6%) studies posted results to the result section of the registry. Additionally, a link associated with a publication was posted in only 393 (22.1%) of the studies. The proportion of studies with posted results were 208 (14%), 61 (29%) and 27 (31.8%) in investigator-initiated, sponsored, and collaborated studies p<0.001 respectively. In the 1778 studies we reviewed, 954 (53.7%) studies were associated with one publication. In the published studies, 721 (75.6%) studies reported a positive conclusion for their publication. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Only, 53.7% of anesthesia related studies with a “complete” status in ClinicalTrials.gov were published. Furthermore, investigators fail to fulfill the requirement of making the results available in the results section of the registry. Lack of availability of published literature and the nonavailability of the results from these studies contributes to publication bias and also failure to honor the ethical responsibility of the investigator to share the results of the study with subjects and with the medical community around the world.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6799412
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67994122019-10-28 2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology Nair, Singh Johns, Davis Delphin, Ellise Leff, Jonathan J Clin Transl Sci Science and Health Policy/Ethics/Health Impacts/Outcomes Research OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent of publication bias in anesthesia and to evaluate the characteristics of studies that are registered and unpublished. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used the advanced search option and the key word “anesthesia” to identify anesthesia related studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. For the purpose of this analysis we have randomly selected 50% of the anesthesia related studies from the year 2008–2013. We have collected information pertaining to drug/device study, origin, type, design, subspecialty, enrollment target, anesthesia type, and adult/ pediatric, sponsored/ investigator initiated, population studied and start and end date. Studies with an ongoing, terminated, or unknown status were excluded from the analysis. For results, we initially searched the results section associated with each study; also we searched for any publication link at the study result area of the registry. For studies with no results and publication links we searched on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase by trial registration number, study title, and investigators name for matching manuscripts. In addition, we also analyzed the proportion of studies with positive and negative conclusions. We used descriptive and univariate statistics to report the results. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Overall, 5448 studies were identified within the queried timeframe. We have included 2649 studies in our final analysis and detailed analysis were performed for 1778 studies with the status “completed.” The mean, standard deviation of subjects enrolled in completed trials was 392.47±6378. Only 162 (9.9%) studies registered were in the pediatric population, and 1616 (90.9%) were in the adult population. Finally, of the reviewed studies, 1486 (83.6%) were investigator-initiated, 207 (11.6%) were sponsored, and 85 (4.8%) were registered as collaborated studies. Among the completed studies only 296 (16.6%) studies posted results to the result section of the registry. Additionally, a link associated with a publication was posted in only 393 (22.1%) of the studies. The proportion of studies with posted results were 208 (14%), 61 (29%) and 27 (31.8%) in investigator-initiated, sponsored, and collaborated studies p<0.001 respectively. In the 1778 studies we reviewed, 954 (53.7%) studies were associated with one publication. In the published studies, 721 (75.6%) studies reported a positive conclusion for their publication. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Only, 53.7% of anesthesia related studies with a “complete” status in ClinicalTrials.gov were published. Furthermore, investigators fail to fulfill the requirement of making the results available in the results section of the registry. Lack of availability of published literature and the nonavailability of the results from these studies contributes to publication bias and also failure to honor the ethical responsibility of the investigator to share the results of the study with subjects and with the medical community around the world. Cambridge University Press 2018-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6799412/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.310 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Science and Health Policy/Ethics/Health Impacts/Outcomes Research
Nair, Singh
Johns, Davis
Delphin, Ellise
Leff, Jonathan
2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology
title 2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology
title_full 2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology
title_fullStr 2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology
title_full_unstemmed 2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology
title_short 2283 Utilization of ClinicalTrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology
title_sort 2283 utilization of clinicaltrials.gov registry to demonstrate the extent of dissemination bias in anesthesiology
topic Science and Health Policy/Ethics/Health Impacts/Outcomes Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6799412/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.310
work_keys_str_mv AT nairsingh 2283utilizationofclinicaltrialsgovregistrytodemonstratetheextentofdisseminationbiasinanesthesiology
AT johnsdavis 2283utilizationofclinicaltrialsgovregistrytodemonstratetheextentofdisseminationbiasinanesthesiology
AT delphinellise 2283utilizationofclinicaltrialsgovregistrytodemonstratetheextentofdisseminationbiasinanesthesiology
AT leffjonathan 2283utilizationofclinicaltrialsgovregistrytodemonstratetheextentofdisseminationbiasinanesthesiology