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: 2.06). 12/2011; 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Joerg J Meerpohl, Jun 20, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
137 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Uro-oncological neoplasms have both a high incidence and mortality rate and are therefore a major public health problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate research activity in uro-oncology over the last decade. We searched MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically for studies on prostatic, urinary bladder, kidney, and testicular neoplasms. The increase in newly published reports per year was analyzed using linear regression. The results are presented with 95% confidence intervals, and a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The number of new publications per year increased significantly for prostatic, kidney and urinary bladder neoplasms (all <0.0001). We identified 1,885 randomized controlled trials (RCTs); also for RCTs, the number of newly published reports increased significantly for prostatic (p = 0.001) and kidney cancer (p = 0.005), but not for bladder (p = 0.09) or testicular (p = 0.44) neoplasms. We identified 3,114 registered uro-oncological studies in ClinicalTrials.gov. However, 85% of these studies are focusing on prostatic (45%) and kidney neoplasms (40%), whereas only 11% were registered for bladder cancers. While the number of publications on uro-oncologic research rises yearly for prostatic and kidney neoplasms, urothelial carcinomas of the bladder seem to be neglected despite their important clinical role. Clinical research on neoplasms of the urothelial bladder must be explicitly addressed and supported.
    BMC Urology 10/2013; 13(1):56. DOI:10.1186/1471-2490-13-56 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.
    Biochemia Medica 06/2014; 24(2):211-6. DOI:10.11613/BM.2014.023 · 2.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration. Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended. We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number. Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration.
    PLoS ONE 10/2013; 8(10):e75995. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0075995 · 3.53 Impact Factor