Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: A cross-sectional analysis

被引：55
作者：
Jones C.W. [1 ]
Keil L.G. [2 ]
Weaver M.A. [3 ]
Platts-Mills T.F. [2 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, One Cooper Plaza, Suite 152, Camden, 08103, NJ
[2] Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
[3] Departments of Internal Medicine and Biostatistics, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
来源：
Systematic Reviews | / 3卷 / 1期
关键词：
ClinicalTrials.gov; Publication bias; Systematic review; Trials registry;
D O I：
10.1186/2046-4053-3-126
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background: Publication bias is a major threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Searches of clinical trials registries can help to identify unpublished trials, though little is known about how often these resources are utilized. We assessed the usage and results of registry searches reported in systematic reviews published in major general medical journals. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis includes data from systematic reviews assessing medical interventions which were published in one of six major general medical journals between July 2012 and June 2013. Two authors independently examined each published systematic review and all available supplementary materials to determine whether at least one clinical trials registry was searched. Results: Of the 117 included systematic reviews, 41 (35%) reported searching a trials registry. Of the 29 reviews which also provided detailed registry search results, 15 (52%) identified at least one completed trial and 18 (62%) identified at least one ongoing trial. Conclusions: Clinical trials registry searches are not routinely included in systematic reviews published in major medical journals. Routine examination of registry databases may allow a more accurate characterization of publication and outcome reporting biases and improve the validity of estimated effects of medical treatments. © 2014 Jones et al.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 56 条
  • [1] Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gotzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J., Moher D., The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, J Clin Epidemiol, 62, 10, (2009)
  • [2] Spoor P., Airey M., Bennett C., Greensill J., Williams R., Use of the capture-recapture technique to evaluate the completeness of systematic literature searches, BMJ, 313, pp. 342-343, (1996)
  • [3] Peters J.L., Sutton A.J., Jones D.R., Abrams K.R., Rushton L., Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis, JAMA, 295, pp. 676-680, (2006)
  • [4] Jones C.W., Handler L., Crowell K.E., Keil L.G., Weaver M.A., Platts-Mills T.F., Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis, BMJ, 347, (2013)
  • [5] Lau J., Ioannidis J.P., Terrin N., Schmid C.H., Olkin I., The case of the misleading funnel plot, BMJ, 333, pp. 597-600, (2006)
  • [6] Terrin N., Schmid C.H., Lau J., In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias, J Clin Epidemiol, 58, pp. 894-901, (2005)
  • [7] De Angelis C., Drazen J.M., Frizelle F.A., Haug C., Hoey J., Horton R., Kotzin S., Laine C., Marusic A., Overbeke A.J., Schroeder T.V., Sox H.C., Van Der Weyden M.B., Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, N Engl J Med, 351, 12, pp. 1250-1251, (2004)
  • [8] Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. US Public Law 110-85
  • [9] Simes R.J., Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials, J Clin Oncol, 4, pp. 1529-1541, (1986)
  • [10] Tonks A., A clinical trials register for Europe, BMJ, 325, pp. 1314-1315, (2002)
123456