4.6 Review

Discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome specifications in analgesic trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

期刊

PAIN
卷 154, 期 12, 页码 2769-2774

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.08.011

关键词

Analgesic medications; Clinical trials; Primary outcomes; Registry; Systematic review

资金

  1. ACTTION
  2. FDA
  3. Astellas
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  5. Collegium
  6. Depomed
  7. Eli Lilly
  8. Horizon
  9. Jazz
  10. Johnson Johnson
  11. Mallinckrodt
  12. Pfizer
  13. Purdue
  14. Zalicus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The National Institutes of Health released the trial registry Clinical Trials. gov in 2000 to increase public reporting and clinical trial transparency. This systematic review examined whether registered primary outcome specifications (POS; ie, definitions, timing, and analytic plans) in analgesic treatment trials correspond with published POS. Trials with accompanying publications (n = 87) were selected from the Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials (RReACT) database of all postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia clinical trials registered at Clinical Trials. gov as of December 1, 2011. POS never matched precisely; discrepancies occurred in 79% of the registry-publication pairs (21% failed to register or publish primary outcomes [PO]). These percentages did not differ significantly between industry and non-industry-sponsored trials. Thirty percent of the trials contained unambiguous POS discrepancies (eg, omitting a registered PO from the publication, demoting'' a registered PO to a published secondary outcome), with a statistically significantly higher percentage of non-industry-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials containing unambiguous POS discrepancies. POS discrepancies due to ambiguous reporting included vaguely worded PO registration; or failing to report the timing of PO assessment, statistical analysis used for the PO, or method to address missing PO data. At best, POS discrepancies may be attributable to insufficient registry requirements, carelessness (eg, failing to report PO assessment timing), or difficulty uploading registry information. At worst, discrepancies could indicate investigator impropriety (eg, registering imprecise PO [pain''], then publishing whichever pain assessment produced statistically significant results). Improvements in PO registration, as well as journal policies requiring consistency between registered and published PO descriptions, are needed. (C) 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据