Cargando…

From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review of registered COVID-19-related randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in mainland China and evaluate the transparency of reporting through comparison of registrations, protocols and full reports. DESIGN: Systematic review of trial registrations and publicati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Yu, Yan, Ruiqing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9309620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35863839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058070
_version_ 1784753206726754304
author Chen, Yu
Yan, Ruiqing
author_facet Chen, Yu
Yan, Ruiqing
author_sort Chen, Yu
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review of registered COVID-19-related randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in mainland China and evaluate the transparency of reporting through comparison of registrations, protocols and full reports. DESIGN: Systematic review of trial registrations and publications. DATA SOURCES: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry and EU Clinical Trial Register were accessed on 1 February 2022. Publications were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, CNKI.net and Wanfangdata from 10 February 2022 to 12 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible trials were COVID-19 related RCTs carried out in mainland China. Observational studies, non-randomised trials and single-arm trials were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from registrations, publications and performed risk of bias assessment for trial reports. Information provided by registrations and publications was compared. The findings were summarised with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The number of eligible studies was 415. From these studies 20 protocols and 77 RCT reports were published. Seven trials published both protocol and RCT full report. Between registrations and publications, discrepancy or omission was found in sample size (7, 35.0% for protocols and 47, 61.0% for reports, same below), trial setting (13, 65.0% and 43, 55.8%), inclusion criteria (12, 60.0% and 57, 74.0%), exclusion criteria (10, 50.0% and 54, 70.1%), masking method (9, 45.0% and 35, 45.5%) and primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement (14, 70.0% and 51, 66.2%). Between protocols and full reports, 5 (71.4%) reports had discrepancy in primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy among registrations, protocols and reports revealed compromised transparency in reporting of COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China. The importance of trial registration should be further emphasised to enhance transparent RCT reporting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9309620
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93096202022-07-25 From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature Chen, Yu Yan, Ruiqing BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review of registered COVID-19-related randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in mainland China and evaluate the transparency of reporting through comparison of registrations, protocols and full reports. DESIGN: Systematic review of trial registrations and publications. DATA SOURCES: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry and EU Clinical Trial Register were accessed on 1 February 2022. Publications were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, CNKI.net and Wanfangdata from 10 February 2022 to 12 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible trials were COVID-19 related RCTs carried out in mainland China. Observational studies, non-randomised trials and single-arm trials were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data from registrations, publications and performed risk of bias assessment for trial reports. Information provided by registrations and publications was compared. The findings were summarised with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The number of eligible studies was 415. From these studies 20 protocols and 77 RCT reports were published. Seven trials published both protocol and RCT full report. Between registrations and publications, discrepancy or omission was found in sample size (7, 35.0% for protocols and 47, 61.0% for reports, same below), trial setting (13, 65.0% and 43, 55.8%), inclusion criteria (12, 60.0% and 57, 74.0%), exclusion criteria (10, 50.0% and 54, 70.1%), masking method (9, 45.0% and 35, 45.5%) and primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement (14, 70.0% and 51, 66.2%). Between protocols and full reports, 5 (71.4%) reports had discrepancy in primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy among registrations, protocols and reports revealed compromised transparency in reporting of COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China. The importance of trial registration should be further emphasised to enhance transparent RCT reporting. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9309620/ /pubmed/35863839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058070 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Chen, Yu
Yan, Ruiqing
From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
title From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
title_full From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
title_fullStr From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
title_full_unstemmed From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
title_short From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
title_sort from registration, protocol to report: are covid-19-related rcts in mainland china consistent? a systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9309620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35863839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058070
work_keys_str_mv AT chenyu fromregistrationprotocoltoreportarecovid19relatedrctsinmainlandchinaconsistentasystematicreviewofclinicaltrialregistryandliterature
AT yanruiqing fromregistrationprotocoltoreportarecovid19relatedrctsinmainlandchinaconsistentasystematicreviewofclinicaltrialregistryandliterature