Improving Transparency and Reproducibility Through Registration: The Status of Intervention Trials Published in Clinical Psychology Journals

Lukasz Cybulski, Evan R Mayo-Wilson, Sean Grant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Prospective registration increases the validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the United States, registration is a legal requirement for drugs and devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and many biomedical journals refuse to publish trials that are not registered. Trials in clinical psychology have not been subject to these requirements; it is unknown to what extent they are registered. Method: We searched the 25 highest-impact clinical psychology journals that published at least 1 RCT of a health-related psychological intervention in 2013. For included trials, we evaluated their registration status (prospective, retrospective, not registered) and the completeness of their outcome definitions. Results: We identified 163 articles that reported 165 RCTs; 73 (44%) RCTs were registered, of which only 25 (15%) were registered prospectively. Of registered RCTs, only 42 (58%) indicated their registration status in the publication. Only 2 (1% of all trials) were registered prospectively and defined their primary outcomes completely. For the primary outcome(s), 72 (99%) of all registrations defined the domain, 67 (92%) the time frame, and 48 (66%) the specific measurements. Only 19 (26%) and 5 (7%) defined the specific metric and method of aggregation, respectively, for all primary outcomes. Conclusions: Very few reports of RCTs published in clinical psychology journals were registered prospectively and completely. Clinical psychology journals could improve transparency and reproducibility, as well as reduce bias, by requiring complete prospective trial registration for publication and by including trial registration numbers in all reports of RCTs. (PsycINFO Database Record

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jun 9 2016

Fingerprint

Clinical Psychology
Randomized Controlled Trials
Publications
United States Food and Drug Administration
Psychology
Registration
Transparency
Reproducibility
Randomized Controlled Trial
Equipment and Supplies
Health
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Intervention research
  • Randomized controlled trials
  • Reporting bias
  • Reporting guidelines
  • Trial registration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

@article{cbeefb33c2c045f3a322f4409ee9cfc9,
title = "Improving Transparency and Reproducibility Through Registration: The Status of Intervention Trials Published in Clinical Psychology Journals",
abstract = "Objective: Prospective registration increases the validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the United States, registration is a legal requirement for drugs and devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and many biomedical journals refuse to publish trials that are not registered. Trials in clinical psychology have not been subject to these requirements; it is unknown to what extent they are registered. Method: We searched the 25 highest-impact clinical psychology journals that published at least 1 RCT of a health-related psychological intervention in 2013. For included trials, we evaluated their registration status (prospective, retrospective, not registered) and the completeness of their outcome definitions. Results: We identified 163 articles that reported 165 RCTs; 73 (44{\%}) RCTs were registered, of which only 25 (15{\%}) were registered prospectively. Of registered RCTs, only 42 (58{\%}) indicated their registration status in the publication. Only 2 (1{\%} of all trials) were registered prospectively and defined their primary outcomes completely. For the primary outcome(s), 72 (99{\%}) of all registrations defined the domain, 67 (92{\%}) the time frame, and 48 (66{\%}) the specific measurements. Only 19 (26{\%}) and 5 (7{\%}) defined the specific metric and method of aggregation, respectively, for all primary outcomes. Conclusions: Very few reports of RCTs published in clinical psychology journals were registered prospectively and completely. Clinical psychology journals could improve transparency and reproducibility, as well as reduce bias, by requiring complete prospective trial registration for publication and by including trial registration numbers in all reports of RCTs. (PsycINFO Database Record",
keywords = "Intervention research, Randomized controlled trials, Reporting bias, Reporting guidelines, Trial registration",
author = "Lukasz Cybulski and Mayo-Wilson, {Evan R} and Sean Grant",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1037/ccp0000115",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology",
issn = "0022-006X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving Transparency and Reproducibility Through Registration

T2 - The Status of Intervention Trials Published in Clinical Psychology Journals

AU - Cybulski, Lukasz

AU - Mayo-Wilson, Evan R

AU - Grant, Sean

PY - 2016/6/9

Y1 - 2016/6/9

N2 - Objective: Prospective registration increases the validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the United States, registration is a legal requirement for drugs and devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and many biomedical journals refuse to publish trials that are not registered. Trials in clinical psychology have not been subject to these requirements; it is unknown to what extent they are registered. Method: We searched the 25 highest-impact clinical psychology journals that published at least 1 RCT of a health-related psychological intervention in 2013. For included trials, we evaluated their registration status (prospective, retrospective, not registered) and the completeness of their outcome definitions. Results: We identified 163 articles that reported 165 RCTs; 73 (44%) RCTs were registered, of which only 25 (15%) were registered prospectively. Of registered RCTs, only 42 (58%) indicated their registration status in the publication. Only 2 (1% of all trials) were registered prospectively and defined their primary outcomes completely. For the primary outcome(s), 72 (99%) of all registrations defined the domain, 67 (92%) the time frame, and 48 (66%) the specific measurements. Only 19 (26%) and 5 (7%) defined the specific metric and method of aggregation, respectively, for all primary outcomes. Conclusions: Very few reports of RCTs published in clinical psychology journals were registered prospectively and completely. Clinical psychology journals could improve transparency and reproducibility, as well as reduce bias, by requiring complete prospective trial registration for publication and by including trial registration numbers in all reports of RCTs. (PsycINFO Database Record

AB - Objective: Prospective registration increases the validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the United States, registration is a legal requirement for drugs and devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and many biomedical journals refuse to publish trials that are not registered. Trials in clinical psychology have not been subject to these requirements; it is unknown to what extent they are registered. Method: We searched the 25 highest-impact clinical psychology journals that published at least 1 RCT of a health-related psychological intervention in 2013. For included trials, we evaluated their registration status (prospective, retrospective, not registered) and the completeness of their outcome definitions. Results: We identified 163 articles that reported 165 RCTs; 73 (44%) RCTs were registered, of which only 25 (15%) were registered prospectively. Of registered RCTs, only 42 (58%) indicated their registration status in the publication. Only 2 (1% of all trials) were registered prospectively and defined their primary outcomes completely. For the primary outcome(s), 72 (99%) of all registrations defined the domain, 67 (92%) the time frame, and 48 (66%) the specific measurements. Only 19 (26%) and 5 (7%) defined the specific metric and method of aggregation, respectively, for all primary outcomes. Conclusions: Very few reports of RCTs published in clinical psychology journals were registered prospectively and completely. Clinical psychology journals could improve transparency and reproducibility, as well as reduce bias, by requiring complete prospective trial registration for publication and by including trial registration numbers in all reports of RCTs. (PsycINFO Database Record

KW - Intervention research

KW - Randomized controlled trials

KW - Reporting bias

KW - Reporting guidelines

KW - Trial registration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973502226&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973502226&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/ccp0000115

DO - 10.1037/ccp0000115

M3 - Article

C2 - 27281372

AN - SCOPUS:84973502226

JO - Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

JF - Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

SN - 0022-006X

ER -