ArticleBMC medicine2024
Harm effects in non-registered versus registered randomized controlled trials of medications: a retrospective cohort study of clinical trials.
Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrial registration aims to address potential bias from selective or non-reporting of findings, and therefore has a vital role in promoting transparency and accountability of clinical research. In this study, we aim to investigate the influence of trial registration on estimated harm effects in randomized controlled trials of medication interventions.
methodsWe searched PubMed for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials on medication harms indexed between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020. To be included in the analyses, eligible meta-analyses should have at least five randomized trials with distinct registration statuses (i.e., prospectively registered, retrospectively registered, and non-registered) and 2 by 2 table data for adverse events for each trial. To control for potential confounding, trials in each meta-analysis were analyzed within confounder-harmonized groups (e.g., dosage) identified using the Directed Acyclic Graph method. The harm estimates arising from the trials with different registration statuses were compared within the confounder-harmonized groups using hierarchical linear regression. Results are shown as ratio of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThe dataset consists of 629 meta-analyses of harms with 10,069 trials. Of these trials, 74.3% were registered, and 23.9% were not registered, and for those registered, 70.6% were prospectively registered, while 26.3% were retrospectively registered. In comparison to prospectively registered trials, both non-registered trials (ratio of OR = 0.82, 95%CI 0.68 to 0.98, P = 0.03) and retrospectively registered trials (ratio of OR = 0.75, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.86, P < 0.01) had lower OR for harms based on 69 and 126 confounders-harmonized groups. The OR of harms did not differ between retrospectively registered and non-registered trials (ratio of OR = 1.02, 95%CI 0.85 to 1.23, P = 0.83) based on 76 confounders-harmonized groups.
conclusionsMedication-related harms may be understated in non-registered trials, and there was no obvious evidence that retrospective registration had a demonstrable benefit in reducing such selective or absent reporting. Prospective registration is highly recommended for future trials.
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.