Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Validity 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Of 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. Conclusion: The 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 Inclusion of these registries can help identify unpublished trial data, which may improve the quality of systematic reviews by reducing publication bias.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalWorld journal of urology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Urology
Registries
Clinical Trials
Publication Bias
MEDLINE
Databases

Keywords

  • Clinical trial registries
  • Meta-analysis
  • Publication bias
  • Registries
  • Systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

@article{bb269fcecc744416b67c5057fdb1e62d,
title = "Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology",
abstract = "Objective: Validity 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Of 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. Conclusion: The 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.",
keywords = "Clinical trial registries, Meta-analysis, Publication bias, Registries, Systematic reviews",
author = "Tareq Aro and Kevin Koo and Brian Matlaga",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00345-019-02914-4",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "World Journal of Urology",
issn = "0724-4983",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology

AU - Aro, Tareq

AU - Koo, Kevin

AU - Matlaga, Brian

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: Validity 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Of 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. Conclusion: The 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.

AB - Objective: Validity 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Of 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. Conclusion: The 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.

KW - Clinical trial registries

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Publication bias

KW - Registries

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071584017&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071584017&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00345-019-02914-4

DO - 10.1007/s00345-019-02914-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 31444605

AN - SCOPUS:85071584017

JO - World Journal of Urology

JF - World Journal of Urology

SN - 0724-4983

ER -