ArticleJRSM open2014
Discrepancies between registration and publication of randomised controlled trials: an observational study.
Article in JRSM open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- High Outcome-Reporting Bias in Randomized-Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Cancer Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Pooled it
- Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Tinnitus Trials: Comparison of Trial Registries With Corresponding Publications.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled 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
- Article
- Research waste in total knee arthroplasty studies: an observational study on registered trials.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Mohs Surgery vs. Wide Local Excision for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Comparing Recurrence Rates, Economic Value, and Aesthetic Outcomes.Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics · 2026Article
- 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
- Observational
- Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2022Observational
- Review
- Trends of clinical trials from 2017 to 2019 in Korea: an integrated analysis based on the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) registries.Translational and clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- A Systems Approach to Understanding and Improving Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Challenges in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting in randomized clinical trial studies: A systematic review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2019Article
- Registration and publication of emergency and elective randomised controlled trials in surgery: a cohort study from trial registries.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Systematic review protocol assessing the processes for linking clinical trial registries and their published results.BMJ open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the consistency between information contained in the registration and publication of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
designAn observational study of RCTs published between May 2011 and May 2012 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) comparing registry data with publication data. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: Data extracted from published RCTs in BMJ and JAMA.
main outcome measuresTiming of trial registration in relation to completion of trial data collection and publication. Registered versus published primary and secondary outcomes, sample size.
resultsWe identified 40 RCTs in BMJ and 36 in JAMA. All 36 JAMA trials and 39 (98%) BMJ trials were registered. All registered trials were registered prior to publication. Thirty-two (82%) BMJ trials recorded the date of data completion; of these, in two trials the date of trial registration postdated the registered date of data completion. There were discrepancies between primary outcomes declared in the trial registry information and in the published paper in 18 (47%) BMJ papers and seven (19%) JAMA papers. The original sample size stated in the trial registration was achieved in 24 (60%) BMJ papers and 21 (58%) JAMA papers.
conclusionsCompulsory registration of RCTs is meaningless if the content of registry information is not complete or if discrepancies between registration and publication are not reported. This study demonstrates that discrepancies in primary and secondary outcomes and sample size between trial registration and publication remain commonplace, giving further strength to the World Health Organisation's argument for mandatory completion of a minimum number of compulsory fields.
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.