ArticlePloS one2012
Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Modification of Visual Contrast in the Dining Environment and Its Impact on Dietary Intake in Older Adults-A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning in Differentiating Gliomas from Primary CNS Lymphomas: A Systematic Review, Reporting Quality, and Risk of Bias Assessment.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Pooled it
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Frequency of Abstracts Presented at Eye and Vision Conferences Being Developed Into Full-Length Publications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA ophthalmology · 2020Article
- How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye.Eye (London, England) · 2019Review
- Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study).Research synthesis methods · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Using ClinicalTrials.gov to supplement information in ophthalmology conference abstracts about trial outcomes: a comparison study.PloS one · 2015Article
- Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches?Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014Article
- Availability of results from clinical research: failing policy efforts.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2014Article
- ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo reduce publication bias, systematic reviewers are advised to search conference abstracts to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in humans and not published in full. We assessed the information provided by authors to aid identification of RCTs for reviews.
methodsWe handsearched the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meeting abstracts for 2004 to 2009 to identify reports of RCTs. We compared our classification with that of authors (requested by ARVO 2004-2006), and authors' report of trial registration (required by ARVO 2007-2009).
resultsAuthors identified their study as a clinical trial for 169/191 (88%; 95% CI, 84-93) RCTs we identified for 2004, 174/212 (82%; 95% CI, 77-87) for 2005 and 162/215 (75%; 95% CI, 70-81) for 2006. Authors provided registration information for 107/172 (62%; 95% CI, 55-69) RCTs for 2007, 103/153 (67%; 95% CI, 60-75) for 2008, and 126/171 (74%; 95% CI, 67-80) for 2009. Most RCT authors providing a trial register name specified ClinicalTrials.gov (276/312; 88%; 95% CI, 85-92) and provided a valid ClinicalTrials.gov registration number (261/276; 95%; 95% CI, 92-97). Based on information provided by authors, trial registration information would be accessible for 48% (83/172) (95% CI, 41-56) of all ARVO abstracts describing RCTs in 2007, 63% (96/153) (95% CI, 55-70) in 2008, and 70% in 2009 (118/171) (95% CI, 62-76).
conclusionsAuthors of abstracts describing RCTs frequently did not classify them as clinical trials nor comply with reporting trial registration information, as required by the conference organizers. Systematic reviewers cannot rely on authors to identify relevant unpublished trials or report trial registration, if present.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.