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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Discrepancies in endpoints between clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registration in randomized trials in oncology

Authors: Victoria J. Serpas, Kanwal P. Raghav, Daniel M. Halperin, James Yao, Michael J. Overman

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries.

Methods

We reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries.

Results

Of the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials.

Conclusion

Although recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Public Law 105–115. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). 1997;111 STAT. 2296.
2.
3.
Laine C, Horton R, De Agelis C, Drazen J, Frizelle F, Godlee F, et al. Clinical trial registration- looking back and moving ahead. NEJM. 2007;356:2634–6.CrossRef
4.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;268(8):637–9.CrossRef
5.
Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18.CrossRef
6.
De Agelis C, Drazen J, Frizelle F, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM. 2004;351:1250–1.CrossRef
7.
De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Is This Clinical Trial Fully Registered? — A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(23):2436–8 06/09; 2017/10.CrossRef
8.
Krleza-Jeric K, Chan A, Dickerson K, Grimshaw J, Gludd C. Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions. BMJ. 2005;330:956–9.CrossRef
9.
Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams R, Carr S. Trial reporting in clinicaltrials.gov- the final rule. NEJM. 2016;375:1998–2004.CrossRef
10.
Zarin D, Tse T, Sheehan J. The proposed rule for US clinical trial registration and results submission. NEJM. 2015;372:174–80.CrossRef
11.
Haller D, Cannistra S. Providing protocol information for journal of clinical oncology readers: what practicing clinicians need to know. JCO. 2011;29(9):109–1098.CrossRef
12.
Raghav K, Mahajan S, Yao J, Hobbs B, Berry D, Pentz R, et al. From protocols to publications: a study in selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials in oncology. JCO. 2015;33(31):2583–90.CrossRef
13.
14.
15.
Bourgeois F, Murthy S, Mandl K. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(3):158–66.CrossRef
16.
Anderson M, Chiswell K, Peterson E, Tasneem A, Topping J, Califf R. Compliance with results reporting at clinialtrials.gov. NEJM. 2015;372:1031–9.CrossRef
17.
Becker J, Krumholz H, Ben-Josef G. Reporting of results in clinicaltrials.gov and high impact journals. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1063–5.CrossRef
18.
Chan A, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr M, Gøtzsche P, Altman D. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457–65.CrossRef
19.
Dwan K, Altamn D, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble C, Williamson P. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1).Art. No. MR000031.
20.
Hartung D, Zarin D, Guise J, McDonagh M, Paytner R, Helfand M. Reporting discrepancies between the clinicaltrials.gov results database and peer-reviewed publications. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(7):477–83.CrossRef
21.
Perlmutter A, Tran V, Dechartres A, Ravaud P. Comparison of primary outcomes in protocols, public clinical trials registries and publications: the example of clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2016;8(57):97648-56.
Metadata
Title
Discrepancies in endpoints between clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registration in randomized trials in oncology
Authors
Victoria J. Serpas
Kanwal P. Raghav
Daniel M. Halperin
James Yao
Michael J. Overman
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0627-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

A preference-based item response theory model to measure health: concept and mathematics of the multi-attribute preference response model

Research article

A qualitative approach to guide choices for designing a diary study

Research article

Advantages of a multi-state approach in surgical research: how intermediate events and risk factor profile affect the prognosis of a patient with locally advanced rectal cancer

Research article

Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation

Research article

The importance of including aliases in data linkage with vulnerable populations

Correction

Correction to: multiple imputation for patient reported outcome measures in randomised controlled trials: advantages and disadvantages of imputing at the item, subscale or composite score level