ArticlePloS one2015
Transparency of Outcome Reporting and Trial Registration of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Review
- The Campbell Collaboration's systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- The Role of Clearinghouses in Promoting Transparent Research: A Methodological Study of Transparency Practices for Preventive Interventions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Article
- Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Article
- Registration and primary outcome reporting in behavioral health trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Characteristics of Neuropsychiatric Mobile Health Trials: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Journal Registration Policies and Prospective Registration of Randomized Clinical Trials of Nonregulated Health Care Interventions.JAMA internal medicine · 2019Article
- Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Article
- Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Article
- Reporting of Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness-Based Mental Health Interventions.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConfidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.
methodsEligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013-2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.
resultsOf 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).
conclusionsThe quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.
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.