Reporting Discrepancies Between the ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database and Peer-Reviewed Publications.
ABSTRACT ClinicalTrials.gov requires reporting of result summaries for many drug and device trials.
To evaluate the consistency of reporting of trials that are registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and published in the literature.
ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matched publications identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and a manual search of 2 electronic databases.
10% random sample of phase 3 or 4 trials with results in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, completed before 1 January 2009, with 2 or more groups.
One reviewer extracted data about trial design and results from the results database and matching publications. A subsample was independently verified.
Of 110 trials with results, most were industry-sponsored, parallel-design drug studies. The most common inconsistency was the number of secondary outcome measures reported (80%). Sixteen trials (15%) reported the primary outcome description inconsistently, and 22 (20%) reported the primary outcome value inconsistently. Thirty-eight trials inconsistently reported the number of individuals with a serious adverse event (SAE); of these, 33 (87%) reported more SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the 84 trials that reported SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov, 11 publications did not mention SAEs, 5 reported them as zero or not occurring, and 21 reported a different number of SAEs. Among 29 trials that reported deaths in ClinicalTrials.gov, 28% differed from the matched publication.
Small sample that included earliest results posted to the database.
Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matching publications are common. Which source contains the more accurate account of results is unclear, although ClinicalTrials.gov may provide a more comprehensive description of adverse events than the publication.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: to assess the proportion of registered randomised controlled trials in five core clinical geriatric journals and to analyse whether registered study outcomes correspond with published outcomes.Age and Ageing 06/2014; DOI:10.1093/ageing/afu086 · 3.11 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Over the past 2 decades, there have been numerous stem cell studies focused on cardiac diseases, ranging from proof-of-concept to phase 2 trials. This series of papers focuses on the legacy of these studies and the outlook for future treatment of cardiac diseases with stem cell therapies. The first section by Drs. Rosen and Myerburg is an independent review that analyzes the basic science and translational strategies supporting the rapid advance of stem cell technology to the clinic, the philosophies behind them, trial designs, and means for going forward that may impact favorably on progress. The second and third sections were collected as responses to the initial section of this review. The commentary by Drs. Francis and Cole discusses the review by Drs. Rosen and Myerburg and details how trial outcomes can be affected by noise, poor trial design (particularly the absence of blinding), and normal human tendencies toward optimism and denial. The final, independent paper by Dr. Marbán takes a different perspective concerning the potential for positive impact of stem cell research applied to heart disease and future prospects for its clinical application. (Compiled by the JACC editors)Journal of the American College of Cardiology 09/2014; 64(9):922–937. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1175 · 15.34 Impact Factor