Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis.
ClinicalTrials.gov
Dissemination bias
Malaria research trials
Non-dissemination
Outcome reporting bias
Publication bias
Trial registration
WHO dissemination standards
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Sep 2024
30 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
17
06
2024
accepted:
18
09
2024
medline:
1
10
2024
pubmed:
1
10
2024
entrez:
30
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dissemination and outcome reporting biases are a significant problem in clinical research, with far-reaching implications for both scientific understanding and clinical decision-making. This study investigates the prevalence of dissemination- and outcome reporting biases in registered interventional malaria research. All malaria interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2020 were identified. Subsequently, publications that matched the registration were searched. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of registered studies that resulted in subsequent publication of study results, the concordance between registered outcomes, and reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes were compliance with WHO standards for timely publication (issued in 2017) of summary study results in the respective trial registry (within 12 months of study completion) or peer-reviewed publication (within 24 months of study completion) was evaluated. A total of 579 trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 544 met the inclusion criteria. Notably, almost 36.6% of these trials (199/544) were registered retrospectively, with 129 (23.7%) registered after the first patient enrolment and 70 (12.9%) following study completion. Publications were identified for 351 out of 544 registered trials (64.5%), involving 1,526,081 study participants. Conversely, publications were not found for 193 of the 544 registrations (35.5%), which aimed to enrol 417,922 study participants. Among these 544 registrations, 444 (81.6%) did not meet the WHO standard to post summary results within 12 months of primary study completion (the last visit of the last subject for collection of data on the primary outcome), while 386 out of 544 registrations (71.0%) failed to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of primary study completion. Discrepancies were noted in the reported primary outcomes compared to the registered primary outcomes in 47.6% (222/466) of the published trials, and an even higher discordance rate of 73.2% (341/466 publications) for secondary outcomes. Non-dissemination remains a significant issue in interventional malaria research, with most trials failing to meet WHO standards for timely dissemination of summary results and peer-reviewed journal publications. Additionally, outcome reporting bias is highly prevalent across malaria publications. To address these challenges, it is crucial to implement strategies that enhance the timely reporting of research findings and reduce both non-dissemination and outcome reporting bias.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dissemination and outcome reporting biases are a significant problem in clinical research, with far-reaching implications for both scientific understanding and clinical decision-making. This study investigates the prevalence of dissemination- and outcome reporting biases in registered interventional malaria research.
METHODS
METHODS
All malaria interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2020 were identified. Subsequently, publications that matched the registration were searched. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of registered studies that resulted in subsequent publication of study results, the concordance between registered outcomes, and reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes were compliance with WHO standards for timely publication (issued in 2017) of summary study results in the respective trial registry (within 12 months of study completion) or peer-reviewed publication (within 24 months of study completion) was evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 579 trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 544 met the inclusion criteria. Notably, almost 36.6% of these trials (199/544) were registered retrospectively, with 129 (23.7%) registered after the first patient enrolment and 70 (12.9%) following study completion. Publications were identified for 351 out of 544 registered trials (64.5%), involving 1,526,081 study participants. Conversely, publications were not found for 193 of the 544 registrations (35.5%), which aimed to enrol 417,922 study participants. Among these 544 registrations, 444 (81.6%) did not meet the WHO standard to post summary results within 12 months of primary study completion (the last visit of the last subject for collection of data on the primary outcome), while 386 out of 544 registrations (71.0%) failed to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of primary study completion. Discrepancies were noted in the reported primary outcomes compared to the registered primary outcomes in 47.6% (222/466) of the published trials, and an even higher discordance rate of 73.2% (341/466 publications) for secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Non-dissemination remains a significant issue in interventional malaria research, with most trials failing to meet WHO standards for timely dissemination of summary results and peer-reviewed journal publications. Additionally, outcome reporting bias is highly prevalent across malaria publications. To address these challenges, it is crucial to implement strategies that enhance the timely reporting of research findings and reduce both non-dissemination and outcome reporting bias.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39350104
doi: 10.1186/s12936-024-05115-6
pii: 10.1186/s12936-024-05115-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
293Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Marks-Anglin A, Chen Y. A historical review of publication bias. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11:725–42.
pubmed: 32893970
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1452
Devito NJ, Goldacre B. Catalogue of bias: publication bias. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019;24:53–4.
pubmed: 30523135
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111107
Korevaar DA, Ochodo EA, Bossuyt PMM, Hooft L. Publication and reporting of test accuracy studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Clin Chem. 2014;60:651–9.
pubmed: 24381228
doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.218149
Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5: e217 (discussion e217).
pubmed: 19067477
pmcid: 2586350
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217
Murad MH, Chu H, Lin L, Wang Z. The effect of publication bias magnitude and direction on the certainty in evidence. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018;23:84–6.
pubmed: 29650725
pmcid: 5969367
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110891
Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ. 2005;330:977–8.
pubmed: 15860802
pmcid: 557132
doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7498.977
Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–65.
pubmed: 15161896
doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2009;302:977–84.
pubmed: 19724045
doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1242
Taylor NJ, Gorman DM. Registration and primary outcome reporting in behavioral health trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22:41.
pubmed: 35125101
pmcid: 8818241
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01500-w
Lancee M, Lemmens CMC, Kahn RS, Vinkers CH, Luykx JJ. Outcome reporting bias in randomized-controlled trials investigating antipsychotic drugs. Transl Psychiatry. 2017;7:e1232–e1232.
pubmed: 28895941
pmcid: 5639247
doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.203
Edwards HA, Schroeder J, Dugdale HL. Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0201725.
pubmed: 30157231
pmcid: 6114708
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201725
Treanor LM, Frank RA, Atyani A, Sharifabadi AD, Hallgrimson Z, Fabiano N, et al. Reporting bias in imaging diagnostic test accuracy studies: are studies with positive conclusions or titles submitted and published faster? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216:225–32.
pubmed: 33170736
doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.22744
McCrary J, Christensen G, Fanelli D. Conservative tests under satisficing models of publication bias. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0149590.
pubmed: 26901834
pmcid: 4762613
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149590
Campbell H, Gustafson P. Conditional equivalence testing: an alternative remedy for publication bias. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0195145.
pubmed: 29652891
pmcid: 5898747
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195145
Hudson KL, Lauer MS, Collins FS. Toward a new era of trust and transparency in clinical trials. JAMA. 2016;316:1353–4.
pubmed: 27636028
pmcid: 5101947
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14668
Nicholls SG, Langan SM, Benchimol EI, Moher D. Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit. BMC Med. 2016;14:44.
pubmed: 26979591
pmcid: 4793699
doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0587-5
Alfonso F, Adamyan K, Artigou J-Y, Aschermann M, Boehm M, Buendia A, et al. Data sharing: a new editorial initiative of the international committee of medical journal editors. implications for the editors’ network. Arch Cardiol Mex. 2017;87:101–7.
pubmed: 28473184
Ekmekci PE. An increasing problem in publication ethics: publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20:171–8.
pubmed: 28342053
doi: 10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0
Khan KM, Chan A-W, Chow R, Masalkhi M, Ayala AP, Alayche M. Evaluating prospective study registration and result reporting of trials conducted in Canada from 2009–2019. Facets. 2023;8:1.
doi: 10.1139/facets-2022-0208
Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, Betts JA. The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0186472.
pubmed: 29065125
pmcid: 5655535
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472
Declaration of Helsinki World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
WHO. World malaria report 2022. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme . Accessed 22 Sept 2024.
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167–70.
pubmed: 12775614
pmcid: 156458
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
Every S, Mbchb P, Howick J, Te P, Whariki K. How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20:908–14.
doi: 10.1111/jep.12147
STROBE-checklist-v4-cross-sectional. https://www.strobe-statement.org/download/strobe-checklist-cohort-case-control-and-cross-sectional-studies-combined-doc . Accessed 22 Sept 2024.
Huser V, Cimino JJ. Linking ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to track results of interventional human clinical trials. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:68409.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068409
Visser BJ, Buijink AWG, Grobusch MP. Reporting of medical research costs. Improving transparency and reproducibility of medical research. Methods Inf Med. 2014;53:329–31.
pubmed: 24986236
doi: 10.3414/ME14-04-0004
WHO. Joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials. https://www.who.int/news/item/18-05-2017-joint-statement-on-registration . Accessed 22 Sept 2024.
Ross JS, Mocanu M, Lampropulos JF, Tse T, Krumholz HM. Time to publication among completed clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:825.
pubmed: 23460252
pmcid: 3691813
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.136
Hoffmann JM, Grossmann R, Widmann A. Academic clinical trials: publication of study results on an international registry—we can do better! Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:1069933.
pubmed: 36507494
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1069933
Snyder RJ. Lack of transparency in publishing negative clinical trial results. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2020;37:385–9.
pubmed: 32146990
doi: 10.1016/j.cpm.2019.12.013
Ehrhardt S, Appel LJ, Meinert CL. Trends in national institutes of health funding for clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. JAMA. 2015;314:2566–7.
pubmed: 26670975
pmcid: 4919115
doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12206
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: e1001566.
pubmed: 24311990
pmcid: 3849189
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566
ter Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, Sterk PJ, Van Noorden CJF, Bouter LM, et al. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e43404.
pubmed: 22957028
pmcid: 3434185
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043404
Jones CW, Keil LG, Holland WC, Caughey MC, Platts-Mills TF. Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2015;13:282.
pubmed: 26581191
pmcid: 4650202
doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0520-3
Diakonoff H, Khalil G, Jungo S, Treluyer JM, Fron-Chabouis H, Smaïl-Faugeron V. Nonpublication and selective outcome reporting of oral health trials. J Dent Res. 2023;102(6):599–607
doi: 10.1177/00220345231158544
pubmed: 36995039
Rivero-de-Aguilar A, Pérez-Ríos M, Ruano-Raviña A, Candal-Pedreira C, Puente-Hernandez M, Ross JS, et al. Evidence of publication bias in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a comparative analysis of published and unpublished studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2023;94:597–604.
pubmed: 36977551
doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2023-331132
Lindsley K, Fusco N, Li T, Scholten R, Hooft L. Clinical trial registration was associated with lower risk of bias compared with non-registered trials among trials included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;145:164–73.
pubmed: 35081449
pmcid: 9875740
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.012
Mitra-Majumdar M, Kesselheim AS. Reporting bias in clinical trials: Progress toward transparency and next steps. PLoS Med. 2022;19: e1003894.
pubmed: 35045078
pmcid: 8769309
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003894
Dal-Ré R, Marušić A. Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;72:1283–8.
pubmed: 27484242
doi: 10.1007/s00228-016-2112-3
Button KS, Bal L, Clark A, Shipley T. Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review. BMC Psychol. 2016;4:59.
pubmed: 27903302
pmcid: 5131510
doi: 10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7
Law LSC, Lo EAG. A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias? Can J Anaesth. 2016;63:1381–2.
pubmed: 27623801
doi: 10.1007/s12630-016-0730-y
Pardo-Hernandez H, Urrútia G, Meerpohl JJ, Marušić A, Wager E, Bonfill X. Opinions and potential solutions regarding dissemination bias from funding agencies of biomedical research in Europe. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24:72–9.
pubmed: 28090730
doi: 10.1111/jep.12692
Viergever RF, Karam G, Reis A, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials: still a problem. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e84727.
pubmed: 24427293
pmcid: 3888400
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084727
van Heteren JAA, van Beurden I, Peters JPM, Smit AL, Stegeman I. Trial registration, publication rate and characteristics in the research field of otology: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14: e0219458.
pubmed: 31291350
pmcid: 6619790
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219458
Wagenmakers E-J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HLJ, Kievit RA. An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7:632–8.
pubmed: 26168122
doi: 10.1177/1745691612463078
van Wilgenburg E, Elgar MA. Confirmation bias in studies of nestmate recognition: a cautionary note for research into the behaviour of animals. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e53548.
pubmed: 23372659
pmcid: 3553103
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053548
Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8: e66844.
pubmed: 23861749
pmcid: 3702538
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844
Won J, Kim S, Bae I, Lee H. Trial registration as a safeguard against outcome reporting bias and spin? A case study of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture. PLoS ONE. 2019;14: e0223305.
pubmed: 31581278
pmcid: 6776391
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223305
Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC Text with EEA relevance. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0536 . Accessed 22 Sept 2024.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Civil money penalties relating to the ClinicalTrials.gov Data Bank. Guidance for responsible parties, submitters of certain applications and submissions to FDA, and FDA Staff. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/civil-money-penalties-relating-clinicaltrialsgov-data-bank . Accessed 22 Sept 2024.
Fleming N. Top US institutes still aren’t reporting clinical-trial results on time. Nature. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00994-1 .
doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-00994-1
pubmed: 33239768
pmcid: 7147811
Goldacre B, Devito NJ, Heneghan C, Irving F, Bacon S, Fleminger J, et al. Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource. BMJ. 2018;362: k3218.
pubmed: 30209058
pmcid: 6134801
doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3218
Littner Y, Mimouni F, Dollberg S. Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1036–7.
pubmed: 16275793
doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1036
Grobusch MP, del Portal Ruiz, Luyten C, Visser BJ, de Jong HK, Goorhuis A, Hanscheid T. Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials. Lancet Infect Dis. 2024;24:e189–95.
pubmed: 37837983
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00455-3
Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, Fitzgerald JE, Harrison EM, Bhangu A. Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study. BMJ. 2014;349: g6870.
pubmed: 25491195
pmcid: 4260649
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6870
Wieseler B, McGauran N. From publication bias to lost in information: why we need a central public portal for clinical trial data. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022;27:74–6.
pubmed: 33303480
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111566