Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29325533›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2018

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.

Guowei Li, Luciana P F Abbade, Ikunna Nwosu, Yanling Jin, Alvin Leenus, Muhammad Maaz, Mei Wang, Meha Bhatt, Laura Zielinski, Nitika Sanger and 11 more

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Ten simple rules for good research practice.PLoS computational biology · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Guowei LiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca.
Luciana P F AbbadeDepartment of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ikunna NwosuDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Yanling JinDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Alvin LeenusFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Muhammad MaazFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mei WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Meha BhattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Laura ZielinskiMcMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Nitika SangerMedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Bianca BantotoIntegrated Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Candice LuoFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ieta ShamsPsychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Hamnah ShahidArts and Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Yaping ChangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Guangwen SunDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Zainab SamaanDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Mitchell A H LevineDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Jonathan D AdachiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, 501-25 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 1Y2, Canada. thabanl@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProspective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature.

methodsElectronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively.

resultsThere were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting.

conclusionsWe found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareProspective StudiesResearch DesignResearch ReportBiased reportingDiscrepancyIncomplete reportingInconsistencyProtocolRegistrationSelective reporting

Identifiers

PMID29325533
PMCPMC5765717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.