Article

Do urology journals enforce trial registration? A cross-sectional study of published trials.

German Cochrane Centre, Institute of Medical Biometry & Medical Informatics, University Medical Centre Freiburg, Freiburg/Br., Germany.
BMJ Open (Impact Factor: 1.58). 01/2011; 1(2):e000430. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000430
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
116 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transparenz ist in der Forschung wichtig, um Studienergebnisse effektiv in die klinische Routine transferieren zu können. Die wissenschaftliche Transparenz kann u. a. durch ein selektives Berichten von ganzen Studien oder bestimmten Endpunkten eingeschränkt sein. Eine prospektive Studienregistrierung hat das Potenzial, die Transparenz in der klinischen Forschung zu erhöhen, indem die Studienmethodik beurteilt und eventuelle Verzerrungen eingeschätzt werden können. Eine Studienregistrierung ist eine wissenschaftliche, ethische und moralische Verpflichtung. Studienärzte und Sponsoren sollten als Selbstverpflichtung auf eine prospektive Studienregistrierung achten. Das urologische Studienregister wurde an das Deutsche Register Klinischer Studien angeschlossen und ermöglicht somit eine WHO-anerkannte Registrierung.
    Der Urologe 51(9). · 0.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Trial registration and the reporting of trial results are essential to increase transparency in clinical research. Although both have been strongly promoted in recent years, it remains unclear whether they have been successfully implemented in surgery and surgery-related disciplines. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in surgery journals requiring trial registration in their author instructions were indeed registered, and whether the study results of registered RCTs had been submitted to the trial register and were thus publicly available. The ten highest ranked surgery journals requiring trial registration by impact factor (Journal Citation Reports, JCR, 2011) were chosen. We then searched MEDLINE (in PubMed) for RCTs published in the selected journals between 1 June 2012 and 31 December 2012. Any trials recruiting participants before 2004 were excluded because the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) first proposed trial registration in 2004. We then searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to assess whether the identified RCTs were indeed registered and whether the results of the registered RCTs were available in the register. The search retrieved 588 citations. Four hundred and sixty references were excluded in the first screening. A further 25 were excluded after full-text screening. A total of 103 RCTs were finally included. Eighty-five of these RCTs (83%) could be found via the ICTRP. For 7 of 59 (12%) RCTs, which were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, summary study data had been posted in the results database. Although still not fully implemented, trial registration in surgery has gained momentum. In general, however, the submission of summary study data to ClinicalTrials.gov remains poor.
    Trials 12/2013; 14(1):407. · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the proportion of medical journals requiring trial registration and to understand their reasons for adopting (or not adopting) such policies and other measures designed to reduce publication bias. Quantitative study of journals' instructions to authors (in June 2012) and qualitative study of editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias (carried out in Autumn 2012). Random selection of 200 medical journals publishing clinical trials identified from the Cochrane CENTRAL database. Editors (n=13) and publishers (n=3) of journals with different policies on trial registration (and with recently changed policies) identified from the survey of their instructions to authors. Only 55/200 journals (28%) required trial registration according to their instructions and a further three (2%) encouraged it. The editors and publishers interviewed explained their journals' reluctance to require registration in terms of not wanting to lose out to rival journals, not wanting to reject otherwise sound articles or submissions from developing countries, and perceptions that such policies were not relevant to all journals. Some interviewees considered that registration was unnecessary for small or exploratory studies. Although many major medical journals state that they will only publish clinical trials that have been prospectively registered, and such policies have been associated with a dramatic increase in the number of trials being registered, most smaller journals have not adopted such policies. Editors and publishers may be reluctant to require registration because they do not understand its benefits or because they fear that adopting such a policy would put their journal at a disadvantage to competitors.
    BMJ (online) 01/2013; 347:f5248. · 17.22 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
42 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014