Clinical-trial reporting is on the rise

Inga Vesper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03317-1

IF: 64.8

2024-10-17

Nature

Abstract:Although some countries have made marked strides in reporting trial results, others still face a long road ahead. Although some countries have made marked strides in reporting trial results, others still face a long road ahead.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register

Sarai Mirjam Keestra,Florence Rodgers,Sophie Gepp,Peter Grabitz,Till Bruckner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745211071015

2022-02-16

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Background: January 2019, the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee sent letters to UK universities admonishing them to achieve compliance with results reporting requirements for Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products by summer 2019. This study documents changes in the clinical trial policies and Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product reporting performance of 20 major UK universities following that intervention. Methods: Freedom of Information requests were filed in June 2018 and June 2020 to obtain clinical trial registration and reporting policies covering both Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products and all other clinical trials. Two independent reviewers assessed policies against transparency benchmarks based on World Health Organization best practices. To evaluate universities’ trial reporting performance, we used a public online tracking tool, the European Union Trials Tracker, which assesses universities’ compliance with regulatory Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Product disclosure requirements on the European Clinical Trial Register. Specifically, we evaluated whether universities were adhering to the European Union requirement to post summary results on the trial registry within 12 months of completion. Results: Mean policy strength increased from 2.8 to 4.9 points (out of a maximum of 7 points) between June 2018 and June 2020. In October 2018 the average percentage of due Clinical Trials of Investigative Medicinal Products that had results available on the European trial registry across university sponsors included in the cohort was 29%. By June 2021, this had increased to 91%, with 5 universities achieving a reporting performance of 100%. All 20 universities reported more than 70% of their due trial results on the European trial registry. Interpretation: Political pressure appears to have a significant positive impact on UK universities’ clinical trial reporting policies and performance. Similar approaches could be used to improve reporting performance for other types of sponsors, other types of trials, and in other countries.

medicine, research & experimental
Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study

Nicholas J DeVito,Seb Bacon,Ben Goldacre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33220-9

2020-02-01

Abstract:Background: Failure to report the results of a clinical trial can distort the evidence base for clinical practice, breaches researchers' ethical obligations to participants, and represents an important source of research waste. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 now requires sponsors of applicable trials to report their results directly onto ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of completion. The first trials covered by the Final Rule of this act became due to report results in January, 2018. In this cohort study, we set out to assess compliance. Methods: We downloaded data for all registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. All cross-sectional analyses in this manuscript were performed on data extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on Sept 16, 2019; monthly trends analysis used archived data closest to the 15th day of each month from March, 2018, to September, 2019. Our study cohort included all applicable trials due to report results under FDAAA. We excluded all non-applicable trials, those not yet due to report, and those given a certificate allowing for delayed reporting. A trial was considered reported if results had been submitted and were either publicly available, or undergoing quality control review at ClinicalTrials.gov. A trial was considered compliant if these results were submitted within 1 year of the primary completion date, as required by the legislation. We described compliance with the FDAAA 2007 Final Rule, assessed trial characteristics associated with results reporting using logistic regression models, described sponsor-level reporting, examined trends in reporting, and described time-to-report using the Kaplan-Meier method. Findings: 4209 trials were due to report results; 1722 (40·9%; 95% CI 39·4-42·2) did so within the 1-year deadline. 2686 (63·8%; 62·4-65·3) trials had results submitted at any time. Compliance has not improved since July, 2018. Industry sponsors were significantly more likely to be compliant than non-industry, non-US Government sponsors (odds ratio [OR] 3·08 [95% CI 2·52-3·77]), and sponsors running large numbers of trials were significantly more likely to be compliant than smaller sponsors (OR 11·84 [9·36-14·99]). The median delay from primary completion date to submission date was 424 days (95% CI 412-435), 59 days higher than the legal reporting requirement of 1 year. Interpretation: Compliance with the FDAAA 2007 is poor, and not improving. To our knowledge, this is the first study to fully assess compliance with the Final Rule of the FDAAA 2007. Poor compliance is likely to reflect lack of enforcement by regulators. Effective enforcement and action from sponsors is needed; until then, open public audit of compliance for each individual sponsor may help. We will maintain updated compliance data for each individual sponsor and trial at fdaaa.trialstracker.net. Funding: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges

Faiez Zannad,Filippo Crea,John Keaney,Stuart Spencer,Joseph A Hill,Marc A Pfeffer,Stuart Pocock,Emma Raderschadt,Joseph S Ross,Chana A Sacks,Harriette G C Van Spall,Ron Winslow,Mariell Jessup

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad279

2023-10-21

Abstract:Large-scale clinical trials are essential in cardiology and require rapid, accurate publication, and dissemination. Whereas conference presentations, press releases, and social media disseminate information quickly and often receive considerable coverage by mainstream and healthcare media, they lack detail, may emphasize selected data, and can be open to misinterpretation. Preprint servers speed access to research manuscripts while awaiting acceptance for publication by a journal, but these articles are not formally peer-reviewed and sometimes overstate the findings. Publication of trial results in a major journal is very demanding but the use of existing checklists can help accelerate the process. In case of rejection, procedures such as easing formatting requirements and possibly carrying over peer-review to other journals could speed resubmission. Secondary publications can help maximize benefits from clinical trials; publications of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses further define treatment effects and the patient populations most likely to benefit. These rely on data access, and although data sharing is becoming more common, many challenges remain. Beyond publication in medical journals, there is a need for wider knowledge dissemination to maximize impact on clinical practice. This might be facilitated through plain language summary publications. Social media, websites, mainstream news outlets, and other publications, although not peer-reviewed, are important sources of medical information for both the public and for clinicians. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the information is understandable, accessible, balanced, and trustworthy. This report is based on discussions held on December 2021, at the 18th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting, involving a panel of editors of some of the top medical journals, as well as members of the lay press, industry, and clinical trialists.
Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials

Martin P Grobusch,Claire Ruiz Del Portal Luyten,Benjamin J Visser,Hanna K de Jong,Abraham Goorhuis,Thomas Hanscheid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00455-3

Abstract:Non-timely reporting, selective reporting, or non-reporting of clinical trial results are prevalent and serious issues. WHO mandates that summary results be available in registries within 12 months of study completion and published in full text within 24 months. However, only a limited number of clinical trials in infectious diseases, including those done during the COVID-19 pandemic, have their results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of 50 trials of eight antiviral drugs tested against COVID-19 with a completion date of at least 2 years ago revealed that only 18% had their results published in the registry, with 40% not publishing any results. Non-timely and non-reporting practices undermine patient participation and are ethically unacceptable. Strategies should include obligatory reporting of summary results within 12 months in clinical trial registries, with progress towards peer-reviewed publication within 24 months indicated. Timely publication of research papers should be encouraged through an automated flagging mechanism in clinical trial registries that draws attention to the status of results reporting, such as a green tick for trials that have reported summary results within 12 months and a red tick in case of failure to do so. We propose the inclusion of mandatory clinical trial reporting standards in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which should prohibit sponsor contract clauses that restrict reporting (referred to as gag clauses) and require timely reporting of results as part of the ethics committees' clearance process for clinical trial protocols.
Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02221-6

2024-04-23

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:The dissemination of clinical trial results is an important scientific and ethical endeavour. This survey of completed interventional studies in a French academic center describes their reporting status.

health care sciences & services
Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

Matthew J. To,Jennifer Jones,Mohamed Emara,Alejandro R. Jadad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084779

IF: 3.7

2013-12-31

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Inadequate reporting undermines findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study assessed and compared articles published in high-impact general medical and specialized journals.METHODS: Reports of RCTs published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals were identified through a search of MEDLINE from January to March of 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Articles that provided original data on adult patients diagnosed with chronic conditions were included in the study. Data on trial characteristics, reporting of allocation concealment, quality score, and the presence of a trial flow diagram were extracted independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus or independent adjudication. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables. Comparisons between general medical and specialized journals, and trends over time were performed using Chi-square tests.RESULTS: Reports of 284 trials were analyzed. There was a significantly higher proportion of RCTs published with adequate reporting of allocation concealment (p = 0.003), presentation of a trial flow diagram (p<0.0001) and high quality scores (p = 0.038) over time. Trials published in general medical journals had higher quality scores than those in specialized journals (p = 0.001), reported adequate allocation concealment more often (p = 0.013), and presented a trial flow diagram more often (p<0.001).INTERPRETATION: We found significant improvements in reporting quality of RCTs published in high-impact factor journals over the last fifteen years. These improvements are likely attributed to concerted international efforts to improve reporting quality such as CONSORT. There is still much room for improvement, especially among specialized journals.

multidisciplinary sciences
Prospective registration and reporting of trial number in randomised clinical trials: global cross sectional study of the adoption of ICMJE and Declaration of Helsinki recommendations

Mustafa Al-Durra,Robert P Nolan,Emily Seto,Joseph A Cafazzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m982

2020-04-14

BMJ

Abstract:Objectives: To evaluate the compliance with prospective registration and inclusion of the trial registration number (TRN) in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and to analyse the rationale behind, and detect selective registration bias in, retrospective trial registration. Design: Cross sectional analysis. Data sources: PubMed, the 17 World Health Organization's trial registries, University of Toronto library, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of member journals, and the InCites Journal Citation Reports. Study selection criteria: RCTs registered in any WHO trial registry and published in any PubMed indexed journal in 2018. Results: This study included 10 500 manuscripts published in 2105 journals. Overall, 71.2% (7473/10500) reported the TRN and 41.7% (3013/7218) complied with prospective trial registration. The univariable and multivariable analyses reported significant relations (P<0.05) between reporting the TRN and the impact factor and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A significant relation (P<0.05) was also observed between prospective trial registration and the registry, region, condition, funding, trial size, interval between paper registration and submission dates, impact factor, and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A manuscript published in an ICMJE member journal was 5.8 times more likely to include the TRN (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 8.2), and a published trial was 1.8 times more likely to be registered prospectively (1.8, 1.5 to 2.2) when published in an ICMJE member journal compared with other journals. This study detected a new form of bias, selective registration bias, with a higher proportion (85.2% (616/723)) of trials registered retrospectively within a year of submission for publication. Higher rates of retrospective registrations were observed within the first three to eight weeks after enrolment of study participants. Within the 286 RCTs registered retrospectively and published in an ICMJE member journal, only 2.8% (8/286) of the authors included a statement justifying the delayed registration. Reasons included lack of awareness, error of omission, and the registration process taking longer than anticipated. Conclusions: This study found a high compliance in reporting of the TRN for trial papers published in ICMJE member journals, but prospective trial registration was low.
How Psychiatry Journals Support the Unbiased Translation of Clinical Research. A Cross-Sectional Study of Editorial Policies

Hannes Knüppel,Courtney Metz,Joerg J. Meerpohl,Daniel Strech

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075995

IF: 3.7

2013-10-16

PLoS ONE

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: 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.METHOD: 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.RESULTS: 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.DISCUSSION: 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.

multidisciplinary sciences
Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

Asger S. Paludan-Müller,Perrine Créquit,Isabelle Boutron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-01955-0

IF: 9.3

2021-04-08

BMC Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background An accurate and comprehensive assessment of harms is a fundamental part of an accurate weighing of benefits and harms of an intervention when making treatment decisions; however, harms are known to be underreported in journal publications. Therefore, we sought to compare the completeness of reporting of harm data, discrepancies in harm data reported, and the delay to access results of oncological clinical trials between three sources: clinical study reports (CSRs), clinical trial registries and journal publications. Methods We used the EMA clinical data website to identify all trials submitted to the EMA between 2015 and 2018. We retrieved all CSRs and included all phase II, II/III or III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer. We then identified related records in clinical trial registries and journals. We extracted harms data for eight pre-specified variables and determined the completeness of reporting of harm data in each of the three sources. Results We identified 42 RCTs evaluating 13 different drugs. Results were available on the EMA website in CSRs for 37 (88%) RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov for 36 (86%), the European Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) for 20 (48%) and in journal publications for 32 (76%). Harms reporting was more complete in CSRs than other sources. We identified marked discrepancies in harms data between sources, e.g. the number of patients discontinuing due to adverse events differed in CSRs and clinical trial registers for 88% of trials with data in both sources. For CSRs and publications, the corresponding number was 90%. The median (interquartile range) delay between the primary trial completion date and access to results was 4.34 (3.09–7.22) years for CSRs, 2.94 (1.16–4.52) years for ClinicalTrials.gov, 5.39 (4.18–7.33) years for EUCTR and 2.15 (0.64–5.04) years for publications. Conclusions Harms of recently approved oncological drugs were reported more frequently and in more detail in CSRs than in trial registries and journal publications. Systematic reviews seeking to address harms of oncological treatments should ideally use CSRs as the primary source of data; however, due to problems with access, this is currently not feasible.

medicine, general & internal
Reporting of clinical trial safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov for FDA-approved drugs: A cross-sectional analysis

Krista Y Chen,Erin M Borglund,Emma Charlotte Postema,Adam G Dunn,Florence T Bourgeois

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745221093567

Abstract:Background: Adverse events identified during clinical trials can be important early indicators of drug safety, but complete and timely data on safety results have historically been difficult to access. The aim was to compare the availability, completeness, and concordance of safety results reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed publications. Methods: We analyzed clinical trials used in the Food and Drug Administration safety assessment of new drugs approved between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019. The key safety outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Availability of safety results was measured by the presence and timing of a record of trial-level results in ClinicalTrials.gov and a corresponding peer-reviewed publication. For the subset of trials with available results, completeness was defined as the reporting of safety results for all participants and compared between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. To assess concordance, we compared the numeric results for safety outcomes reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications to results in Food and Drug Administration trial reports. Results: Among 156 trials studying 52 drugs, 91 (58.3%) trials reported safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov and 106 (67.9%) in peer-reviewed publications (risk difference = -9.6%, 95% confidence interval = -20.3 to 1.0). All-cause mortality was reported sooner in published articles compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (log-rank test, p = 0.01). There was no difference in time to reporting for serious adverse events (p = 0.05), adverse events (p = 0.09), or withdrawals due to adverse events (p = 0.20). Complete reporting of all-cause mortality was similar in ClinicalTrials.gov and publications (74.7% vs 78.3%, respectively; risk difference = -3.6%, 95% confidence interval = -15.5 to 8.3) and higher in ClinicalTrials.gov for serious adverse events (100% vs 79.2%; risk difference = 20.8%, 95% confidence interval = 13.0 to 28.5) and adverse events (100% vs 86.8%; risk difference = 13.2%, 95% confidence interval = 6.8 to 19.7). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less often completely reported in ClinicalTrials.gov (62.6% vs 92.5%; risk difference = -29.8%, 95% confidence interval = -40.1 to -18.7). No difference was found in concordance of results between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications for all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or withdrawals due to adverse events. Conclusion: Safety results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov at a similar rate as in peer-reviewed publications, with more complete reporting of certain safety outcomes in ClinicalTrials.gov. Future efforts should consider adverse event reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov as an accessible data source for post-marketing surveillance and other evidence synthesis tasks.
Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK

Rachel L Knowles,Kam Pou Ha,Julia Mueller,Frances Rawle,Rosa Parker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035283

IF: 3.006

2020-02-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To evaluate compliance by researchers with funder requirements on clinical trial transparency, including identifying key areas for improvement; to assess the completeness, accuracy and suitability for annual compliance monitoring of the data routinely collected by a research funding body. Design Descriptive analysis of clinical trials funded between February 2011 and January 2017 against funder policy requirements. Setting Public medical research funding body in the UK. Data sources Relevant clinical trials were identified from grant application details, post-award grant monitoring systems and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry. Main outcome measure The proportion of all Medical Research Council (MRC)-funded clinical trials that were (a) registered in a clinical trial registry and (b) publicly reported summary results within 2 years of completion. Results There were 175 grants awarded that included a clinical trial and all trials were registered in a public trials registry. Of 62 trials completed for over 24 months, 42 (68%) had publicly reported the main findings by 24 months after trial completion; 18 of these achieved this within 12 months of completion. 11 (18%) trials took >24 months to report and 9 (15%) completed trials had not yet reported findings. Five datasets were shared with other researchers. Conclusions Compliance with the funder policy requirements on trial registration was excellent. Reporting of the main findings was achieved for most trials within 24 months of completion; however, the number of unreported trials remains a concern and should be a focus for future funder policy initiatives. Identifying trials from grant management and grant monitoring systems was challenging therefore funders should ensure investigators reliably provide trial registries with information and regularly update entries with details of trial publications and protocols.

medicine, general & internal
Half of Drug Trials with Results on ClinicalTrials.gov Are Not Published in Journals

Susan Mayor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7219

2013-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Half of clinical trials of drugs with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov have not been published in journals even though they were completed four years ago on average, shows the first study to analyse the effect of the US website.1 The analysis also found that reports in journals carried less information than those on the database, particularly on adverse events. Researchers searched the database for all completed phase III or IV randomised controlled trials of drugs with posted results on one day, 27 March 2012. …
Clinical trial registries: The good, and the not so good

Gayatri Saberwal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-024-00477-0

2024-10-06

Journal of Biosciences

Abstract:Clinical trial registries are a vital part of the infrastructure of a robust clinical research ecosystem, itself essential for biomedical translational research. We describe what clinical trial registries are, provide a brief history of the major registries, list the major registries today, mention some of the flaws in these registries, comment on the economics of trial registries, give details of the Indian registry, Clinical Trials Registry – India, and catalogue three examples of research done with data in the Indian registry.

biology
Nearly 500 clinical trials carried out in Nordic countries since 2016 remain unpublished

Elisabeth Mahase

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q343

2024-02-09

BMJ

Abstract:One in five (22%) clinical trials carried out in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden between 2016 and 2019 have not had their results made public, according to a report by several organisations that advocate for trial transparency.1The report, a collaboration between TranspariMED, Cochrane Denmark, Cochrane Norway, Cochrane Sweden, Dam Foundation, Melanomföreningen [the Swedish Melanoma Association], and the AllTrials campaign, looked at the 2113 clinical trials completed by 54 institutions across the five Nordic countries over a four year period.It found that, of these, the results of 475 trials involving just under 84 000 patients have not been made public.Marguerite O'Riordan, advocacy manager at TranspariMED, said, "National governments have a responsibility to protect patients and ensure that public money is not wasted. Preventing research waste is cheaper than continuing to squander taxpayers' money on invisible science. Political decision makers need to wake up and fix this broken system."The World Health...

medicine, general & internal
Prospective Registration of Trials: Where we are, why, and how we could get better

Denis Mongin,Diana Buitrago-Garcia,Sami Capderou,Thomas Agoritsas,Delphine Shophie Courvoisier,Michele Iudici

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.24310935

2024-07-24

Abstract:Objectives: Transparent trial conduct requires prospective registration of a randomized controlled trial before the enrolment of the first participant. Registration aims to minimize potential biases through unjustified or hidden modification of trial design. We aimed to (1) estimate the proportion of randomized controlled trials that are prospectively registered and determine the time trends and the factors associated with prospective registration; (2) evaluate the reasons for non-adherence with prospective registration and explore potential mechanisms to enhance adherence with prospective registration. We studied trials published in rheumatology as a case study. Design and setting: We searched for reports of trials in rheumatology published between January 2009 and December 2022 using MEDLINE-PubMed. We retrieved trial registration numbers using metadata and reviewed full texts. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with prospective trial registration. We sent an online survey to authors of trials that were not prospectively registered. We inquired about possible reasons for non-adherence with prospective registration and asked about potential solutions. Results: We identified 1093 primary reports of randomized controlled trials; 453 (41.4%) were not prospectively registered. Of these, 130 (11.9%) were not registered, and 323 (29.5%) were retrospectively registered. Prospective registration increased over time at a rate of 3% per year (p<0.001), with only 13.3% (2/15) trials prospectively registered in 2009 to 73.2% (112/153) trials in 2022. Even among journals publicly supporting ICMJE recommendation, 16% of the trials published in 2022 were not prospectively registered. In the multivariable model, prospective registration was associated with a larger sample size, recruitment conducted across countries, and publication in a journal with a higher impact factor. Trial evaluating non pharmaceutical intervention, especially education, delivery of health care or wellness, had a lower rate of prospective registration. Investigators reported lack of knowledge, or organizational problems as the main reasons for retrospective registration. Authors also suggested linking ethical approval to trial registration as the best option to ensure prospective registration. Conclusions: Despite significant improvement, adherence to prospective registration remains unsatisfactory in rheumatology. Different strategies targeting journal editors, healthcare professionals, and researchers may improve trial registration.

Rheumatology
Reporting Compliance and Factors Influencing Timeliness of Stroke-Related Trial Results on ClinicalTrials.gov

Mark Cwajna,Abdelrahman M. Hamouda,Nicholas Kendall,Sherief Ghozy,Benjamin D. Elder,David F. Kallmes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12975-024-01260-x

2024-06-05

Translational Stroke Research

Abstract:Since 2007, research groups are mandated by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) to report clinical trial findings to ClinicalTrials.gov within 12 months of trial completion. This observational study aims to analyze compliance data of stroke-related randomized controlled trials subject to these mandates. Using a previously published algorithm, we identified clinical trials likely to be required to adhere to FDAAA mandates (highly likely applicable clinical trials, or HLACTs) from January 2008 to February 2023. We assessed the proportion of studies that reported results within 12 months of trial completion, as well as those that reported at any point within 5 years. Additionally, we utilized Kaplan–Meier and regression analysis to explore factors associated with on-time reporting. Among 357 stroke-related HLACTs on ClinicalTrials.gov that were terminated or completed between January 1, 2008, and February 1, 2023, 59 (16.5%) reported results within 12 months, while 320 (89.6%) reported results within 5 years. Median reporting times for industry funded, other government or academic institution funded, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funded studies were 18.5 months, 22 months, and 22.5 months, respectively. Open-label studies were less likely to report results by 12 months compared to double-blinded studies ( p = 0.002). Biological trials exhibited a lower probability of reporting within 5 years compared to device and/or drug trials ( p = 0.007). Clinical trial registries and FDAAA mandates aim to promote accountability and transparency in health sciences research. However, regardless of their funding source, only a minority of stroke-related randomized controlled trials comply with FDAAA's 12-month result reporting mandate.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Time to publication for results of clinical trials

Marian G Showell,Sammy Cole,Mike J Clarke,Nicholas J DeVito,Cindy Farquhar,Vanessa Jordan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub3

IF: 8.4

2024-11-29

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Researchers conducting trials have a responsibility to publish the results of their work in a peer‐reviewed journal, and failure to do so may introduce bias that affects the accuracy of available evidence. Moreover, failure to publish results constitutes research waste. To systematically review research reports that followed clinical trials from their inception and their investigated publication rates and time to publication. We also aimed to assess whether certain factors influenced publication and time to publication. We identified studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) and the database of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), from inception to 23 August 2023. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional studies. Studies were eligible if they tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials and contained analyses of any aspect of the publication rate or time to publication of these trials. Two review authors performed data extraction independently. We extracted data on the prevalence of publication and the time from the trial start date or completion date to publication. We also extracted data from the clinical trials included in the research reports, including country of the study's first author, area of health care, means by which the publication status of these trials were sought and the risk of bias in the trials. A total of 204 research reports tracking 165,135 trials met the inclusion criteria. Just over half (53%) of these trials were published in full. The median time to publication was approximately 4.8 years from the enrolment of the first trial participant and 2.1 years from the trial completion date. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant results favouring the experimental arm) were more likely to be published than those with negative or null results (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.60; 19 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.45; 4 studies). On average, trials with positive results took 2 years to publish, whereas trials with negative or null results took 2.6 years. Large trials were more likely to be published than smaller ones (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.77; 11 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.68; 7 studies). Multicentre trials were more likely to be published than single‐centre trials (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40; 2 studies). We found no difference between multicentre and single‐centre trials in time to publication. Trials funded by non‐industry sources (e.g.governments or universities) were more likely to be published than trials funded by industry (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or for‐profit organisations) (adjusted OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.49; 14 studies); they were also published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.86; 7 studies). Our updated review shows that trial publication is poor, with only half of all trials that are conducted being published. Factors that may make publication more likely and lead to faster publication are positive results, large sample size and being funded by non‐industry sources. Differences in publication rates result in publication bias and time‐lag bias that may influence findings and therefore ultimately affect treatment decisions. Systematic review authors should consider the possibility of time‐lag bias when conducting a systematic review, especially when updating their review. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. This review combines and updates two earlier Cochrane reviews. The two protocols and previous versions of the two updated reviews are available via 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2. What questions does this review address? How many of the clinical trials (studies) carried out to examine health interventions are published in journals, and how long does it take for these trials to be published? Are publication rates and the time taken to publication influenced by the nature of trial results, the number of participants and study centres, or the funding source for the trial? Key messages Nearly half (47%) of all clinical trials remain unpublished. Whether a trial is published and how long it takes is influenced by whether there are positive results, how large the trial is and if it is single‐ or multi‐centred, and which type of organisation has funded the trial. What are publication and publication bias? There are several steps in the publication of clinical trial results. The process begins with a clinical trial being carried out, then a summary document (manuscript) is written that contains the aims, methods and results of the trial. The manuscript is sent to a -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Safety reporting in trials on glaucoma interventions registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications

Ante Krešo,Marko Grahovac,Ljubo Znaor,Ana Marušić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79394-z

IF: 4.6

2024-11-18

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Accurate, comprehensive, and consistent reporting of adverse events is of great importance for treatment decisions in clinical practice and patient safety. Aiming to evaluate the completeness and transparency of reported adverse events we conducted a retrospective analysis of completed clinical trials on glaucoma interventions registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from September 27, 2009, and updated and with results on or before November 1, 2023, as well as in corresponding journal publications. Any difference in completeness, number, or terminology/description of adverse events and all-cause mortality between ClinicalTrials.gov and the publication was categorized as inconsistent reporting of adverse events. All 79 trials with results both in the registry and a journal publication exhibited at least one inconsistency in reporting adverse events. In 19 publications (24%), the number of serious adverse events was smaller than in the registry. 69 (87%) trials reported more other adverse events in the registry than in the publication. Trials completed after the FDAA mandate for summary reporting of all-cause mortality more often reported this item in the registry but not in the publication. Trials on glaucoma interventions do not consistently report adverse events and thus introduce concerns about study credibility and potential harms of the interventions. Journals and other stakeholders in trial reporting must address this problem to ensure the safety of patients and trust in health interventions.

multidisciplinary sciences
Clinical trials in "emerging markets": regulatory considerations and other factors

Romi Singh,Ouhong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.09.006

Abstract:Clinical studies are being placed in emerging markets as part of global drug development programs to access large pool of eligible patients and to benefit from a cost effective structure. However, over the last few years, the definition of "emerging markets" is being revisited, especially from a regulatory perspective. For purposes of this article, countries outside US, EU and the traditional "western countries" are discussed. Multiple factors are considered for placement of clinical studies such as adherence to Good Clinical Practice (GCP), medical infrastructure & standard of care, number of eligible patients, etc. This article also discusses other quantitative factors such as country's GDP, patent applications, healthcare expenditure, healthcare infrastructure, corruption, innovation, etc. These different factors and indexes are correlated to the number of clinical studies ongoing in the "emerging markets". R&D, healthcare expenditure, technology infrastructure, transparency, and level of innovation, show a significant correlation with the number of clinical trials being conducted in these countries. This is the first analysis of its kind to evaluate and correlate the various other factors to the number of clinical studies in a country.
Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Julien Péron,Gregory R Pond,Hui K Gan,Eric X Chen,Roula Almufti,Denis Maillet,Benoit You

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs259

2012-07-03

Abstract:Background: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were developed in the mid-1990s for the explicit purpose of improving clinical trial reporting. However, there is little information regarding the adherence to CONSORT guidelines of recent publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology. Methods: All phase III RCTs published between 2005 and 2009 were reviewed using an 18-point overall quality score for reporting based on the 2001 CONSORT statement. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality. To provide baseline data for future evaluations of reporting quality, RCTs were also assessed according to the 2010 revised CONSORT statement. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: A total of 357 RCTs were reviewed. The mean 2001 overall quality score was 13.4 on a scale of 0-18, whereas the mean 2010 overall quality score was 19.3 on a scale of 0-27. The overall RCT reporting quality score improved by 0.21 points per year from 2005 to 2009. Poorly reported items included method used to generate the random allocation (adequately reported in 29% of trials), whether and how blinding was applied (41%), method of allocation concealment (51%), and participant flow (59%). High impact factor (IF, P = .003), recent publication date (P = .008), and geographic origin of RCTs (P = .003) were independent factors statistically significantly associated with higher reporting quality in a multivariable regression model. Sample size, tumor type, and positivity of trial results were not associated with higher reporting quality, whereas funding source and treatment type had a borderline statistically significant impact. Conclusion: The results show that numerous items remained unreported for many trials. Thus, given the potential impact of poorly reported trials, oncology journals should require even stricter adherence to the CONSORT guidelines.

Clinical-trial reporting is on the rise

Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register

Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study

Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges

Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials

Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies

Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

Prospective registration and reporting of trial number in randomised clinical trials: global cross sectional study of the adoption of ICMJE and Declaration of Helsinki recommendations

How Psychiatry Journals Support the Unbiased Translation of Clinical Research. A Cross-Sectional Study of Editorial Policies

Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

Reporting of clinical trial safety results in ClinicalTrials.gov for FDA-approved drugs: A cross-sectional analysis

Challenges for funders in monitoring compliance with policies on clinical trials registration and reporting: analysis of funding and registry data in the UK

Half of Drug Trials with Results on ClinicalTrials.gov Are Not Published in Journals

Clinical trial registries: The good, and the not so good

Nearly 500 clinical trials carried out in Nordic countries since 2016 remain unpublished

Prospective Registration of Trials: Where we are, why, and how we could get better

Reporting Compliance and Factors Influencing Timeliness of Stroke-Related Trial Results on ClinicalTrials.gov

Time to publication for results of clinical trials

Safety reporting in trials on glaucoma interventions registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications

Clinical trials in "emerging markets": regulatory considerations and other factors

Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review