Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?

To reduce publication bias, systematic reviewers are advised to search conference abstracts to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in humans and not published in full. We assessed the information provided by authors to aid identification of RCTs for reviews.We handsearched the Ass...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Roberta W Scherer, Pamela C Sieving, Ann-Margret Ervin, Kay Dickersin
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3439467?pdf=render
id doaj-955415cf8aa240628df96881c3a3f8a5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-955415cf8aa240628df96881c3a3f8a52020-11-25T01:21:22ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-0179e4418310.1371/journal.pone.0044183Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?Roberta W SchererPamela C SievingAnn-Margret ErvinKay DickersinTo reduce publication bias, systematic reviewers are advised to search conference abstracts to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in humans and not published in full. We assessed the information provided by authors to aid identification of RCTs for reviews.We handsearched the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meeting abstracts for 2004 to 2009 to identify reports of RCTs. We compared our classification with that of authors (requested by ARVO 2004-2006), and authors' report of trial registration (required by ARVO 2007-2009).Authors identified their study as a clinical trial for 169/191 (88%; 95% CI, 84-93) RCTs we identified for 2004, 174/212 (82%; 95% CI, 77-87) for 2005 and 162/215 (75%; 95% CI, 70-81) for 2006. Authors provided registration information for 107/172 (62%; 95% CI, 55-69) RCTs for 2007, 103/153 (67%; 95% CI, 60-75) for 2008, and 126/171 (74%; 95% CI, 67-80) for 2009. Most RCT authors providing a trial register name specified ClinicalTrials.gov (276/312; 88%; 95% CI, 85-92) and provided a valid ClinicalTrials.gov registration number (261/276; 95%; 95% CI, 92-97). Based on information provided by authors, trial registration information would be accessible for 48% (83/172) (95% CI, 41-56) of all ARVO abstracts describing RCTs in 2007, 63% (96/153) (95% CI, 55-70) in 2008, and 70% in 2009 (118/171) (95% CI, 62-76).Authors of abstracts describing RCTs frequently did not classify them as clinical trials nor comply with reporting trial registration information, as required by the conference organizers. Systematic reviewers cannot rely on authors to identify relevant unpublished trials or report trial registration, if present.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3439467?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Roberta W Scherer
Pamela C Sieving
Ann-Margret Ervin
Kay Dickersin
spellingShingle Roberta W Scherer
Pamela C Sieving
Ann-Margret Ervin
Kay Dickersin
Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
PLoS ONE
author_facet Roberta W Scherer
Pamela C Sieving
Ann-Margret Ervin
Kay Dickersin
author_sort Roberta W Scherer
title Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
title_short Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
title_full Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
title_fullStr Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
title_full_unstemmed Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
title_sort can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials?
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2012-01-01
description To reduce publication bias, systematic reviewers are advised to search conference abstracts to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in humans and not published in full. We assessed the information provided by authors to aid identification of RCTs for reviews.We handsearched the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meeting abstracts for 2004 to 2009 to identify reports of RCTs. We compared our classification with that of authors (requested by ARVO 2004-2006), and authors' report of trial registration (required by ARVO 2007-2009).Authors identified their study as a clinical trial for 169/191 (88%; 95% CI, 84-93) RCTs we identified for 2004, 174/212 (82%; 95% CI, 77-87) for 2005 and 162/215 (75%; 95% CI, 70-81) for 2006. Authors provided registration information for 107/172 (62%; 95% CI, 55-69) RCTs for 2007, 103/153 (67%; 95% CI, 60-75) for 2008, and 126/171 (74%; 95% CI, 67-80) for 2009. Most RCT authors providing a trial register name specified ClinicalTrials.gov (276/312; 88%; 95% CI, 85-92) and provided a valid ClinicalTrials.gov registration number (261/276; 95%; 95% CI, 92-97). Based on information provided by authors, trial registration information would be accessible for 48% (83/172) (95% CI, 41-56) of all ARVO abstracts describing RCTs in 2007, 63% (96/153) (95% CI, 55-70) in 2008, and 70% in 2009 (118/171) (95% CI, 62-76).Authors of abstracts describing RCTs frequently did not classify them as clinical trials nor comply with reporting trial registration information, as required by the conference organizers. Systematic reviewers cannot rely on authors to identify relevant unpublished trials or report trial registration, if present.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3439467?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT robertawscherer canwedependoninvestigatorstoidentifyandregisterrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT pamelacsieving canwedependoninvestigatorstoidentifyandregisterrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT annmargretervin canwedependoninvestigatorstoidentifyandregisterrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT kaydickersin canwedependoninvestigatorstoidentifyandregisterrandomizedcontrolledtrials
_version_ 1725130650876379136