Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-05-2020 | Original Article

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

Authors: Tareq Aro, Kevin Koo, Brian R. Matlaga

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 5/2020

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 Inclusion of these registries can help identify unpublished trial data, which may improve the quality of systematic reviews by reducing publication bias.

Available only for authorised users

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126(5):376–380CrossRefPubMed

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263(10):1385–1389CrossRefPubMed

Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias G (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS One 8(7):e66844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L (2012) Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 344:d7202. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7202 CrossRefPubMed

Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Perrodeau E, Boutron I (2017) Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 356:j448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j448 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, International Committee of Medical Journal E (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364(9438):911–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17034-7 CrossRefPubMed

De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, International Committee of Medical Journal E (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351(12):1250–1251. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe048225 CrossRefPubMed

De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, International Committee of Medical Journal E (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 292(11):1363–1364. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.11.1363 CrossRef

10.

Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. US Public Law 110–85; 21 USC 301, September 27, 2007

11.

World Health Organization. WHO statement on public disclosure of clinical trial results. http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/reporting/en/. Accessed Nov 2018

12.

Herrmann D, Sinnett P, Holmes J, Khan S, Koller C, Vassar M (2017) Statistical controversies in clinical research: publication bias evaluations are not routinely conducted in clinical oncology systematic reviews. Ann Oncol 28(5):931–937. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw691 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Jones CW, Handler L, Crowell KE, Keil LG, Weaver MA, Platts-Mills TF (2013) Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 347:f6104. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6104 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Jones CW, Keil LG, Weaver MA, Platts-Mills TF (2014) Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis. Syst Rev 3:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-126 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Boden C, Bidonde J, Busch A (2017) Gaps exist in the current guidance on the use of randomized controlled trial study protocols in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 85:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.021 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Keil LG, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW (2015) Systematic reviews published in emergency medicine journals do not routinely search clinical trials registries: a cross-sectional analysis. Ann Emerg Med 66(4):424–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.10.001 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Sinnett PM, Carr B, Cook G, Mucklerath H, Varney L, Weiher M, Yerokhin V, Vassar M (2015) Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries. PLoS One 10(7):e0134596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134596 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Umberham BA, Detweiler BN, Sims MT, Vassar M (2017) Clinical trial registry use in anaesthesiology systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals and the Cochrane Library. Eur J Anaesthesiol 34(12):797–807. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000671 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Bibens ME, Chong AB, Vassar M (2016) Utilization of clinical trials registries in obstetrics and gynecology systematic reviews. Obstet Gynecol 127(2):248–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001204 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges T (2005) Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 330(7482):68. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

World Health Organization. International clinical trials registry platform-WHO registry criteria. http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/criteria_summary/en/. Accessed Nov 2018

22.

World Health Organization. International clinical trials registry platform-primary registries. http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/. Accessed Nov 2018

23.

Han JL, Gandhi S, Bockoven CG, Narayan VM, Dahm P (2017) The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998–2015): an assessment of methodological quality. BJU Int 119(4):638–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13653 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Narayan VM, Chrouser K, Haynes RB, Parrish R, Dahm P (2016) Defining the publication source of high-quality evidence in urology: an analysis of EvidenceUpdates. BJU Int 117(6):861–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13392 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J (2005) In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 58(9):894–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.006 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, Macaskill P, Schwarzer G, Duval S, Altman DG, Moher D, Higgins JP (2011) Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 343:d4002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa#DevelopmentOfRegulations. Accessed Nov 2018

29.

Final Rule for Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission (42 CFR Part 11). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/21/2016-22129/clinical-trials-registration-and-results-information-submission. Accessed Nov 2018

Title: Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology
Authors: Tareq Aro
Kevin Koo
Brian R. Matlaga
Publication date: 01-05-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02914-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Antibiotic prophylaxis after urethroplasty may offer no benefit

Does YouTube include high-quality resources for training on laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy?

Renorrhaphy techniques and effect on renal function with robotic partial nephrectomy

Impact of ureteral access sheath on renal stone treatment: prospective comparative non-randomised outcomes over a 7-year period

A critical outcome analysis of Asopa single-stage dorsal inlay substitution urethroplasty for penile urethral stricture

The utility of vaginal erbium: YAG laser in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome is in need of confirmation