Comparison of Clinical Trial Changes in Primary Outcome and Reported Intervention Effect Size Between Trial Registration and Publication

被引:35
|
作者
Chen, Tao [2 ]
Li, Chao [1 ,2 ]
Qin, Rui [3 ]
Wang, Yang [4 ,5 ]
Yu, Dahai [6 ]
Dodd, James [2 ]
Wang, Duolao [2 ]
Cornelius, Victoria [7 ]
机构
[1] Xi An Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Hlth Stat, Xian 710061, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Liverpool Liverpool Sch Trop Med, Dept Clin Sci, Trop Clin Trials Unit, Liverpool L3 5QA, Merseyside, England
[3] Jiangsu Prov Hosp Integrat Chinese & Western Med, Dept Hlth Educ, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[4] Peking Union Med Coll, Med Res & Biometr Ctr, Fuwai Hosp, Natl Ctr Cardiovasc Dis, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China
[6] Keele Univ, Arthrit Res UK Primary Care Ctr, Res Inst Primary Care & Hlth Sci, Keele, Staffs, England
[7] Imperial Coll London, Sch Publ Hlth, Imperial Clin Trials Unit, London, England
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; PUBLISHED PRIMARY OUTCOMES; END-POINTS; CONCLUSIONS; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7242
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
IMPORTANCE Primary outcome change could threaten the validity of a clinical trial; however, evidence about the consequences on the reported intervention effect size is unclear. OBJECTIVES To examine the status of randomized clinical trials whose primary outcome changed between trial registration and publication and to quantify the association of this change with the reported intervention effect size. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this cross-sectional study on the primary report of randomized clinical trials with clear prospectively registered primary outcomes, PubMed and Embase were searched for articles published between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015. The search was conducted in January 2016, identifying randomized clinical trials and the combination of keywords and text words related to registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Based on the developed approach, trials were classified as having primary outcome change when there was a major discrepancy between the registered and published primary outcomes. Intervention effect was estimated or recalculated using the odds ratio (OR) for each comparison. Each component OR is structured so that an OR is less than 1 if the intervention group has a more favorable result than the control group. The ratio of ORs (ROR), which is the summary OR for trials with primary outcome change divided by those without, and its 95% CI were calculated, with a value less than 1 indicating a larger reported intervention effect size in trials with primary outcome change than those without. RESULTS Among 29 749 searched articles (28 810 MEDLINE and 939 Embase), 1488 articles were randomly selected for review. Of 389 trials with clear primary outcomes prospectively described in the registry (416 outcomes reported), 33.4% (130 of 389) of trials had at least 1 primary outcome change. Most (66 of 130) of the changes were either not reporting or omitting the primary outcome. In total, 338 trials (365 outcomes and 487 comparisons) were available for quantitative analysis on the reported intervention effect size bias assessment. Compared with those without primary outcome change, trials with primary outcome change showed a 16% (pooled ROR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96) larger reported intervention effect size. The result persisted after adjustment for potential confounders (ROR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93) and other sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this study suggest that inconsistencies between registered and published primary outcomes of clinical trials are common, and trials with primary outcome change are likely to have a larger intervention effect than those without.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Discrepancies in endpoints between clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registration in randomized trials in oncology
    Serpas, Victoria J.
    Raghav, Kanwal P.
    Halperin, Daniel M.
    Yao, James
    Overman, Michael J.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2018, 18
  • [22] The effect of the publication of a major clinical trial in a high impact journal on clinical practise: the ORACLE Trial experience
    Kenyon, S
    Taylor, DJ
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2002, 109 (12) : 1341 - 1343
  • [23] Divergent patterns of clinical-trial registration and publication in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis/eczema
    Quain, RD
    Katz, KA
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 2005, 124 (04) : A50 - A50
  • [24] Comparison of serious adverse events during clinical trial: recorded in the clinical trial database and reported to the sponsor
    Gimbert, A.
    Salame, G. Miremont
    Daveluy, A.
    Poulizac, P.
    Desjardins, S.
    Boury, F.
    Boussuge-Roze, J.
    Moore, N.
    Haramburu, F.
    FUNDAMENTAL & CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2012, 26 : 98 - 98
  • [25] European Medicines Agency changes policy on clinical trial data publication
    Watson, Rory
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 348
  • [26] Comparison between biodentine and formocresol for pulpotomy of primary teeth: A randomized clinical trial
    El Meligy, Omar Abd El Sadek
    Allazzam, Sulaiman
    Alamoudi, Najlaa Mohd
    QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 47 (07): : 571 - 580
  • [27] Effect of erythropoietin as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomised controlled clinical trial
    Ludman, Andrew J.
    Yellon, Derek M.
    Hasleton, Jonathan
    Ariti, Cono
    Babu, Girish Ganesha
    Boston-Griffiths, Edney
    Venugopal, Vinod
    Walker, Malcolm
    Holdright, Diana
    Swanton, Howard
    Crake, Tom
    Brull, David
    Moon, James C.
    Puranik, Rajesh
    Mutharangu, Vivek
    Taylor, Andrew
    Hausenloy, Derek J.
    HEART, 2011, 97 (19) : 1560 - 1565
  • [28] Comparison of treatment and outcome information between a clinical trial and the National Cancer Data Repository
    Morris, E. J. A.
    Jordan, C.
    Thomas, J. D.
    Cooper, M.
    Brown, J. M.
    Thorpe, H.
    Cameron, D.
    Forman, D.
    Jayne, D.
    Quirke, P.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2011, 98 (02) : 299 - 307
  • [29] Comparison Between Intracoronary and Intravenous Eptifibatide and Intracoronary Reteplase in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Nikfarjam, Salman
    Zadkamali, Mostafa
    Salari, Arsalan
    Shakiba, Maryam
    Hoseinie, Mahboubeh Janesar
    Mirbolouk, Fardin
    IRANIAN HEART JOURNAL, 2022, 23 (01):
  • [30] Effectiveness of a geriatric intervention in primary care: a randomized clinical trial
    Monteserin, Rosa
    Brotons, Carlos
    Moral, Irene
    Altimir, Salvador
    Jose, Antonio San
    Santaeugenia, Sebastian
    Sellares, Jaume
    Padros, Jaume
    FAMILY PRACTICE, 2010, 27 (03) : 239 - 245