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
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Reporting of statistically significant results at ClinicalTrials.gov for completed superiority randomized controlled trials

Authors: Agnes Dechartres, Elizabeth G. Bond, Jordan Scheer, Carolina Riveros, Ignacio Atal, Philippe Ravaud

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Publication bias and other reporting bias have been well documented for journal articles, but no study has evaluated the nature of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to assess how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov report statistically significant results and whether the proportion of trials with significant results differs when no treatment effect estimate or p-value is posted.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2015 for all studies with results posted. We included completed RCTs with a superiority hypothesis and considered results for the first primary outcome with results posted. For each trial, we assessed whether a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value was reported at ClinicalTrials.gov and if yes, whether results were statistically significant. If no treatment effect estimate or p-value was reported, we calculated the treatment effect and corresponding p-value using results per arm posted at ClinicalTrials.gov when sufficient data were reported.

Results

From the 17,536 studies with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 2823 completed phase 3 or 4 randomized trials with a superiority hypothesis. Of these, 1400 (50%) reported a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value. Results were statistically significant for 844 trials (60%), with a median p-value of 0.01 (Q1-Q3: 0.001–0.26). For the 1423 trials with no treatment effect estimate or p-value posted, we could calculate the treatment effect and corresponding p-value using results reported per arm for 929 (65%). For 494 trials (35%), p-values could not be calculated mainly because of insufficient reporting, censored data, or repeated measurements over time. For the 929 trials we could calculate p-values, we found statistically significant results for 342 (37%), with a median p-value of 0.19 (Q1-Q3: 0.005–0.59).

Conclusions

Half of the trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov reported a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value, with significant results for 60% of these. p-values could be calculated from results reported per arm at ClinicalTrials.gov for only 65% of the other trials. The proportion of significant results was much lower for these trials, which suggests a selective posting of treatment effect estimates and/or p-values when results are statistically significant.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:MR000006.
4.
Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279(4):281–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000005.
6.
Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Dickersin K, Min YI. Publication bias: the problem that won’t go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:135–46. discussion 146–138.CrossRefPubMed
8.
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(3):252–60.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Gilbody SM, Song F, Eastwood AJ, Sutton A. The causes, consequences and detection of publication bias in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2000;102(4):241–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1385–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet. 2003;361(9362):978–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
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.CrossRefPubMed
14.
DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1363–4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Deangelis 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. JAMA. 2005;293(23):2927–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
18.
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (2007). US Public Law 110–85. Washington (District of Columbia): Food and Drug Administration.
19.
20.
21.
Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Winkel P, Lange T, Wetterslev J. The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance - a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
23.
Open Science Collaboration. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716.
24.
Hartung DM, Zarin DA, Guise JM, McDonagh M, Paynter R, Helfand M. Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and peer-reviewed publications. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(7):477–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E, Haneef R, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. PLoS Med. 2013;10(12):e1001566. discussion e1001566.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Tang E, Ravaud P, Riveros C, Perrodeau E, Dechartres A. Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles. BMC Med. 2015;13:189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Zheng E, Tse T, Zarin DA. ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA: a comparison of results reporting for new drug approval trials. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(6):421–30.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Anderson ML, Chiswell K, Peterson ED, Tasneem A, Topping J, Califf RM. Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(11):1031–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Nguyen TA, Dechartres A, Belgherbi S, Ravaud P. Public availability of results of trials assessing cancer drugs in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(24):2998–3003.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7373.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ramagopalan SV, Skingsley AP, Handunnetthi L, Magnus D, Klingel M, Pakpoor J, et al. Funding source and primary outcome changes in clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are associated with the reporting of a statistically significant primary outcome: a cross-sectional study. F1000Res. 2015;4:80.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:MR000033.PubMed
33.
Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356(9230):635–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Maruani A, Boutron I, Baron G, Ravaud P. Impact of sending email reminders of the legal requirement for posting results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cohort embedded pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;349:g5579.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
36.
Metadata
Title
Reporting of statistically significant results at ClinicalTrials.gov for completed superiority randomized controlled trials
Authors
Agnes Dechartres
Elizabeth G. Bond
Jordan Scheer
Carolina Riveros
Ignacio Atal
Philippe Ravaud
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0740-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medicine 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Effects of testosterone treatment on body fat and lean mass in obese men on a hypocaloric diet: a randomised controlled trial

Research article

Dietary magnesium intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality: a dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

Research article

Mapping the decision pathways of acute infection management in secondary care among UK medical physicians: a qualitative study

Commentary

Benefits of the Mediterranean diet beyond the Mediterranean Sea and beyond food patterns

Research article

Adult-onset Still’s disease: evaluation of prognostic tools and validation of the systemic score by analysis of 100 cases from three centers

Commentary

Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services