ArticleWorld journal of urology2020
Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology.
Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of searching clinical trials registers in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions: Reanalysis of meta-analyses.Research synthesis methods · 2023Pooled it
- A Critical Analysis of Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Peyronie's Disease Literature.The journal of sexual medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where?World journal of urology · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveValidity of systematic reviews may be affected by non-publication of statistically non-significant or unfavorable clinical trial results. One function of clinical trial registries is to make these non-published studies available and thereby reduce potential publication bias. We aim to assess the use of clinical trial registries in published systematic reviews in urology.
methodsWe identified all systematic reviews published in the five highest-impact general urology journals that publish original research between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Full-text analysis was performed to determine if protocols included searching clinical trial registries meeting WHO Registry Network criteria.
resultsOf a total of 204 search results, 92 were included in the analysis as systematic reviews. The majority searched the MEDLINE (91, 98%), EMBASE (69, 75%), and Cochrane (49, 53%) databases. Based on published methods, only 16 (17%) systematic reviews searched any clinical trial registries: 14 (15%) ClinicalTrials.gov, 6 (6%) WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and 2 (2%) ISRCTN registry. Rates of searching clinical trial registries were low regardless of the journal: 8 of 34 (24%) in European Urology; 2 of 10 (20%) in BJU International; 3 of 17 (18%) in Urology; 2 of 18 (11%) in The Journal of Urology; and 1 of 13 (8%) in World Journal of Urology.
conclusionThe majority of recently published systematic reviews in urology do not routinely search clinical trial registries. Inclusion of these registries can help identify unpublished trial data, which may improve the quality of systematic reviews by reducing publication bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31444605What 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.