Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series

Gaelen P. Adam, Stacey Springs, Thomas Trikalinos, John W. Williams, Jennifer L. Eaton, Megan Von Isenburg, Jennifer M. Gierisch, Lisa Wilson, Karen A Robinson, Meera Viswanathan, Jennifer Cook Middleton, Valerie L. Forman-Hoffman, Elise Berliner, Robert M. Kaplan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. Method: We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review's last literature search, screened the records using the review's eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. Results: Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43% of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43% did not have an associated publication. In the 14% of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov's inception date of 2000. Conclusion: Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number59
JournalSystematic Reviews
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 16 2018

Fingerprint

Publications
MEDLINE
Registries
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Adam, G. P., Springs, S., Trikalinos, T., Williams, J. W., Eaton, J. L., Von Isenburg, M., ... Kaplan, R. M. (2018). Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series. Systematic Reviews, 7(1), [59]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5

Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series. / Adam, Gaelen P.; Springs, Stacey; Trikalinos, Thomas; Williams, John W.; Eaton, Jennifer L.; Von Isenburg, Megan; Gierisch, Jennifer M.; Wilson, Lisa; Robinson, Karen A; Viswanathan, Meera; Middleton, Jennifer Cook; Forman-Hoffman, Valerie L.; Berliner, Elise; Kaplan, Robert M.

In: Systematic Reviews, Vol. 7, No. 1, 59, 16.04.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Adam, GP, Springs, S, Trikalinos, T, Williams, JW, Eaton, JL, Von Isenburg, M, Gierisch, JM, Wilson, L, Robinson, KA, Viswanathan, M, Middleton, JC, Forman-Hoffman, VL, Berliner, E & Kaplan, RM 2018, 'Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series', Systematic Reviews, vol. 7, no. 1, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5
Adam, Gaelen P. ; Springs, Stacey ; Trikalinos, Thomas ; Williams, John W. ; Eaton, Jennifer L. ; Von Isenburg, Megan ; Gierisch, Jennifer M. ; Wilson, Lisa ; Robinson, Karen A ; Viswanathan, Meera ; Middleton, Jennifer Cook ; Forman-Hoffman, Valerie L. ; Berliner, Elise ; Kaplan, Robert M. / Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series. In: Systematic Reviews. 2018 ; Vol. 7, No. 1.
@article{39299823a167442aa667c68ef6be72a4,
title = "Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series",
abstract = "Background: We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. Method: We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review's last literature search, screened the records using the review's eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. Results: Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43{\%} of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43{\%} did not have an associated publication. In the 14{\%} of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov's inception date of 2000. Conclusion: Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects.",
author = "Adam, {Gaelen P.} and Stacey Springs and Thomas Trikalinos and Williams, {John W.} and Eaton, {Jennifer L.} and {Von Isenburg}, Megan and Gierisch, {Jennifer M.} and Lisa Wilson and Robinson, {Karen A} and Meera Viswanathan and Middleton, {Jennifer Cook} and Forman-Hoffman, {Valerie L.} and Elise Berliner and Kaplan, {Robert M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
journal = "Systematic Reviews",
issn = "2046-4053",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series

AU - Adam, Gaelen P.

AU - Springs, Stacey

AU - Trikalinos, Thomas

AU - Williams, John W.

AU - Eaton, Jennifer L.

AU - Von Isenburg, Megan

AU - Gierisch, Jennifer M.

AU - Wilson, Lisa

AU - Robinson, Karen A

AU - Viswanathan, Meera

AU - Middleton, Jennifer Cook

AU - Forman-Hoffman, Valerie L.

AU - Berliner, Elise

AU - Kaplan, Robert M.

PY - 2018/4/16

Y1 - 2018/4/16

N2 - Background: We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. Method: We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review's last literature search, screened the records using the review's eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. Results: Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43% of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43% did not have an associated publication. In the 14% of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov's inception date of 2000. Conclusion: Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects.

AB - Background: We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. Method: We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review's last literature search, screened the records using the review's eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. Results: Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43% of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43% did not have an associated publication. In the 14% of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov's inception date of 2000. Conclusion: Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045386335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045386335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5

DO - 10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 29661214

AN - SCOPUS:85045386335

VL - 7

JO - Systematic Reviews

JF - Systematic Reviews

SN - 2046-4053

IS - 1

M1 - 59

ER -