ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning.
Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Towards full clinical trial registration and results publication: longitudinal meta-research study in Northwestern and Central Switzerland.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Meta-Research Study on the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Drug Therapy for Impetigo.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2025Review
- Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- How can meta-research be used to evaluate and improve the quality of research in the field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine?Integrative medicine research · 2024Article
- Outcome reporting bias in nephrology randomized clinical trials: Examining outcomes represented by graphical illustrations.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Transparency of clinical trials in pancreatic cancer: An analysis of availability of trial results from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Cochrane in CORR®: Oral Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs versus Other Oral Analgesic Agents for Acute Soft Tissue Injury.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2021Article
- Article
- Legal regulations, ethical guidelines and recent policies to increase transparency of clinical trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
- Article
- Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted toBMJ open · 2018Article
- Comparison of reporting phase I trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov and matched publications.Investigational new drugs · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare professionals and patients could be negatively influenced in their judgments by articles and meta-analyses presenting selective outcome reporting. Clinical trials should be transparent from inception to the publication of results. To this end, trial prospective registration is an ethical and scientific requirement that have shown to be effective in preventing selective reporting of outcomes. However, even journals with a clear pre-registration policy publish trial results that were retrospectively registered. SITUATION: Analyses of registration of randomized clinical trials recently published in top specialty journals and of meta-analyses with suspicion of including trials with outcome reporting bias have shown that retrospective registration is in the range from 56 to 76 %. This translates into publication of primary endpoints that differ from those included in the registry: some 30 % of trials showed discrepancies between the primary endpoint in the trial registry and the article. Furthermore, it has been shown that 8 % of all clinical trials published by 6 high-impact ICMJE-member journals was retrospectively registered after primary endpoint ascertainment could have had taken place, raising concerns that endpoints may not have been pre-specified, or were changed. With regards to meta-analyses, 34 % of Cochrane systematic reviews included one or more trials with a high suspicion of selective reporting bias for the primary outcome. PROPOSAL: Retrospective registration of trials may foster selective outcome reporting unless journal editors implement specific quality control processes aiming to prevent or minimize this type of bias. Prospective registration of trials-and protocol public disclosure if proven effective in future studies-prevents outcome reporting bias, a must to ensure clinicians and patients have access to reliable clinical trial results. Journal editors should enforce, rather than encourage, appropriate measures to ensure publication of trials free of outcome reporting bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27484242What 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.