ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Impact of selective reporting bias on stroke trials: potential compromise in evidence synthesis - A cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- The threat of serious outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials on acute ischemic stroke to evidence synthesis: a meta-epidemiological study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate reporting of outcomes is crucial for interpreting the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, selectively reporting outcomes in publications to achieve researchers' anticipated results still occurs frequently. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of selective reporting of outcomes in RCTs on treating acute ischemic stroke (AIS), identify factors contributing to this issue, and assess its potential impact on the degree and direction of intervention effect.
methodsA search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to collect interventional RCTs on AIS published from 2020 to 2022. Full texts of RCTs were reviewed, and only those reporting International Clinical Trials Registry Platform primary registry numbers were included. Registration information of the RCTs was extracted from the registry platforms and compared with the publications' details to assess the selective reporting of outcomes. Bayesian multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze the reasons behind selective reporting.
resultsAmong the total of 159 AIS RCTs identified, 82 (51.6%) were ultimately included, as they reported registration numbers, which encompassed 819 outcomes. Among them, 72 RCTs (87.8%) and 497 outcomes (60.7%) exhibited selective reporting. Omission-type selective reporting (downgrading, omitting, or ambiguously reporting) accounted for 36.4%, while addition-type selective reporting (upgrading, adding, or altering the measurement scope of outcomes) comprised 63.6%. Omission-type selective reporting correlated with negative results (OR: 7.39; 95% CI: 4.08-13.44), whereas addition-type selective reporting correlated with positive results (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.34-3.26) and publication in journals that are not in the top quartile of the Journal Citation Reports (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.15-5.38).
conclusionsRegistered interventional AIS RCTs still face significant issues regarding selective reporting of outcomes. Therefore, it is necessary to further evaluate the influence of selective reporting bias on the positive results obtained from individual AIS RCTs and the systematic reviews based on these RCTs.
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.