Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials

Authors: Louise Berendt, Torbjörn Callréus, Lene Grejs Petersen, Karin Friis Bach, Henrik Enghusen Poulsen, Kim Dalhoff

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Unacknowledged inconsistencies in the reporting of clinical trials undermine the validity of the results of the trials. Little is known about inconsistency in the reporting of academic clinical drug trials. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of consistency between protocols and published reports of academic clinical drug trials.

Methods

A comparison was made between study protocols and their corresponding published reports. We assessed the overall consistency, which was defined as the absence of discrepancy regarding study type (categorized as either exploratory or confirmatory), primary objective, primary endpoint, and – for confirmatory trials only – hypothesis and sample size calculation. We used logistic regression, χ2, and Fisher’s exact test.

Results

A total of 282 applications of academic clinical drug trials were submitted to the Danish Health and Medicines Authority in 1999, 2001, and 2003, 95 of which fulfilled the eligibility criteria and had at least one corresponding published report reporting data on trial subjects. Overall consistency was observed in 39 % of the trials (95 % CI: 29 to 49 %). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constituted 72 % (95 % CI: 63 to 81 %) of the sample, and 87 % (95 % CI: 80 to 94 %) of the trials were hospital based.

Conclusions

Overall consistency between protocols and their corresponding published reports was low. Motivators for the inconsistencies are unknown but do not seem restricted to economic incentives.
Literature
1.
World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. www wma net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index html. [serial online] 2008; Accessed 12 May 2013.
2.
3.
Dickersin K CI. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. www jameslindlibrary org/illustrating/articles/recognising-investigating-and-dealing-with-incomplete-and-biase. [serial online] 2013; Available from: The James Lind Library. Accessed 13 May 2013.
4.
Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:MR000031.PubMed
5.
Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Evans S, Marshall T. Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet. Lancet. 2008;372:201.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Blumle A, Antes G, Schumacher M, Just H, von Elm E. Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:e20.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–65.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. 2004;171:735–40.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL. Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. J Eval Clin Pract. 2002;8:353–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. Outcome Reporting in Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for Off-Label Use. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1963–71.CrossRefPubMed
11.
von Elm E, Rollin A, Blumle A, Huwiler K, Witschi M, Egger M. Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Swiss Med Wkly. 2008;138:197–203.
12.
Pich J, Carne X, Arnaiz JA, Gomez B, Trilla A, Rodes J. Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet. 2003;361:1015–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ. 2004;328:22–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
14.
Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ. 2003;326:1171–3.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.
Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:602–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
16.
Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:252–60.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e217.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
von Elm E, Rollin A, Blumle A, Senessie C, Low N, Egger M. Selective reporting of outcomes of drug trials? Comparison of study protocols and published articles [abstract]. XIV Cochrane Colloquium; 2006 October 23-26; Dublin, Ireland 2006; 47.
19.
Pildal J, Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Forfang E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study. BMJ. 2005;330:1049.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
20.
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ. 2008;337:a2299.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
21.
Gandhi M, Ameli N, Bacchetti P, et al. Eligibility criteria for HIV clinical trials and generalizability of results: the gap between published reports and study protocols. AIDS. 2005;19:1885–96.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Berendt L, Hakansson C, Bach KF, et al. Effect of European Clinical Trials Directive on academic drug trials in Denmark: retrospective study of applications to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993-2006. BMJ. 2008;336:33–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
23.
Berendt L, Hakansson C, Bach KF, et al. Methodological characteristics of academic clinical drug trials--a retrospective cohort study of applications to the Danish Medicines Agency 1993-2005. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70:729–35.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
Eccles M, Freemantle N, Mason J. North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of developing guidelines for efficient drug use in primary care. BMJ. 1998;316:1232–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Sheiner LB. Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;61:275–91.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Biomedical Journals: Obligation to Register Clinical Trials. www icmje org/. [serial online] 2012; Accessed 13 May 2013.
29.
European Medicines Agency. EU Clinical Trials Register. www clinicaltrialsregister eu [serial online] 2013; Accessed 12 August 2013.
30.
WHO. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). ww who int/ictrp/en/. [serial online] 2013; Accessed 12 August 2013.
31.
Moja L, Moschetti I, Nurbhai M, et al. Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey. Trials. 2009;10:56.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
32.
Huic M, Marusic M, Marusic A. Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25258.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Reveiz L, Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. Reporting of Methodologic Information on Trial Registries for Quality Assessment: A Study of Trial Records Retrieved from the WHO Search Portal. PLoS One. 2010;5:e12484.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
35.
Smyth RM, Kirkham JJ, Jacoby A, Altman DG, Gamble C, Williamson PR. Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ. 2011;342:c7153.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials
Authors
Louise Berendt
Torbjörn Callréus
Lene Grejs Petersen
Karin Friis Bach
Henrik Enghusen Poulsen
Kim Dalhoff
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1189-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Evaluation of a video-based Internet intervention as preparation for inpatient psychosomatic rehabilitation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

A behavioural change package to prevent hand dermatitis in nurses working in the national health service (the SCIN trial): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Efficacy and safety of Yirui capsule in patients with hyperlipidemia: study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Erratum

Erratum to: ‘Perioperative use of crystalloids in patients undergoing open radical cystectomy: balanced Ringer’s maleate versus a glucose 5 %/potassium-based balanced solution: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial’

Methodology

Accounting for treatment by center interaction in sample size determinations and the use of surrogate outcomes in the pessary for the prevention of preterm birth trial: a simulation study

Study protocol

Comparing the effectiveness of the BPMAP (Blood Pressure Management Application) and usual care in self-management of primary hypertension and adherence to treatment in patients aged 30–60 years: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial