SynthesisPloS one2017
Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Inclusion and definition of acute renal dysfunction in critically ill patients in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical relevance assessment of animal preclinical research (RAA) tool: development and explanation.PeerJ · 2021Trial
- Research waste in total knee arthroplasty studies: an observational study on registered trials.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Resilience and Recalibration of Bibliometric Indicators in Neurosciences and Neuropharmacology Journals After COVID-19: A Longitudinal Rate of Change Analysis Using Mixed-Effects Models.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Article
- Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- Assessment of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Orthopaedics: A Cross-sectional Analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Outcome reporting bias in nephrology randomized clinical trials: Examining outcomes represented by graphical illustrations.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018.BMC urology · 2022Review
- Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2022Observational
- Sharing Government Health Data With the Private Sector: Community Attitudes Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis.Sexual medicine · 2020Article
- Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- Effect of Funding Source on "Spin" in Studies of Ocriplasmin Therapy for Vitreomacular Traction and Macular Hole.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials for the Treatment of Eczema with Chinese Patent Medicine Based on the CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
- Assessment of transparent and reproducible research practices in the psychiatry literature.General psychiatry · 2020Review
- Using the CONSORT statement to evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised trials: a cross-sectional review.BMJ open · 2019Review
- An Institutional Program to Increase Compliance with Clinicaltrials.gov Requirements.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals.
methodsWe searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined.
results180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results.
conclusionAcross trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.
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.