ReviewIntensive care medicine2014
Registration and design alterations of clinical trials in critical care: a cross-sectional observational study.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Risk of Editorial Bias: A Case Study of Factors Contributing to Review Time in a Leading Journal in Dentistry.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Frequency of multiple changes to prespecified primary outcomes of clinical trials completed between 2009 and 2017 in German university medical centers: A meta-research study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2022Observational
- A review of informed consent and how it has evolved to protect vulnerable participants in emergency care research.EFORT open reviews · 2020Article
- Comparison of Clinical Trial Changes in Primary Outcome and Reported Intervention Effect Size Between Trial Registration and Publication.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Article
- Trial registration as a safeguard against outcome reporting bias and spin? A case study of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture.PloS one · 2019Article
- Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure.Intensive care medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors".Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Review
- How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science.F1000Research · 2016Article
- The efficacy of activated protein C for the treatment of sepsis: incorporating observational evidence with a Bayesian approach.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Improving transparency in registration of randomized clinical trials in critical care.Intensive care medicine · 2014Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors issued a requirement that all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) be registered primarily to prevent selective reporting (publication bias). However, registries allow for alterations in study protocol. Changes occurring before (or after) study completion could invalidate the original study intent, leading to publication of misleading conclusions. In RCTs involving critically ill patients, these concerns may be particularly acute because mortality is high and conditions investigated are usually syndromes rather than specific diseases. This study was conducted to estimate the registration rate of RCTs in critical care; and, among registered RCTs, to determine timing of registration and whether sample size or primary outcome were altered.
methodsWe searched the MEDLINE database for RCTs that began after or continued through July 2005. We determined whether each trial had been registered and, for registered trials, compared registry data to data in the published manuscript.
resultsApproximately two-thirds (66%) of trials were registered. Of these, 66% of registrations occurred after enrolment had commenced. Overall, 6% (5/90) of trials appropriately registered a sample size which was unchanged from the interval between registration and publication, and only 12% (11/90) reported primary outcomes that were both appropriately registered and unchanged.
conclusionsNon-registration, or registration after trial initiation, are common in RCTs of critically ill patients. Among registered trials important protocol changes are often made between trial commencement and publication. This study identifies and quantifies the extent of this serious-but correctable-problem for RCTs in critically ill patients.
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.