Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
Explore this paper's citation graph
Summary
The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols and Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention.
- Type
- article
- Published
- 2004-05-26
- Cited by
- 1,823
- References
- 37
- OpenAlex
- https://openalex.org/W2133774931
- Semantic Scholar
- https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9321252
Keywords
Medicine, Odds ratio, Randomized controlled trial, Confidence interval, Odds
References
- The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials
- Publication and related biases.
- Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation.
- Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized anti-epileptic drug monotherapy trials.
- Bias in meta-analytic research.
- Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned.
- Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals.
- How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing.
- The power of the protocol.
- Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.
- Journals should see original protocols for clinical trials
- Time for changes in the design, analysis, and reporting of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials.
- Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure For Scholarship In The Digital Age
- Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies.
- False-positive results in clinical trials: multiple significance tests and the problem of unreported comparisons.
- Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice
- Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee.
- Meta-analysis. Unresolved issues and future developments.
- Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities.
- Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications
Cited by
- Reporting research results: A moral obligation for all researchers
- Hormones and endometrial cancer--new data from the Million Women Study.
- How to make your article more acceptable for the statistical reviewer
- Understanding clinical trial outcomes: design, analysis, and interpretation
- Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis.
- What Should Be Done About Bias and Misconduct in Clinical Trials?
- CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
- Implementing registries and results databases of clinical trials: is there a side effect?
- Efficacy and Effectiveness of Exercise on Tender Points in Adults with Fibromyalgia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- Reporting bias in trials of volume resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch
- Flexible Stopping Boundaries When Changing Primary Endpoints after Unblinded Interim Analyses
- Biomedical journals lack a consistent method to detect outcome reporting bias: a cross‐sectional analysis
- Outcomes mapping study for childhood vaccination communication: too few concepts were measured in too many ways.
- Glucosamine and chondroitin for the treatment of osteoarthritis
- Comparison of Registered and Reported Outcomes in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Anesthesiology Journals
- Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality.
- A digital media strategy to obtain unpublished data for a systematic review yields a very high author response rate.
- Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge.
- Multiple analyses in clinical trials: sound science or data dredging?
- The influence of centre selection on the generalisability of economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials : a case study from the Rossini trial
Related papers
- [The number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH)].
- Evidence-based dermatology: number needed to treat and its relation to other risk measures.
- When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed
- The number needed to harm: is it too optimistic?
- Aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention: the two faces of the coin and the importance of the Number Needed to Treat: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Benefit–Risk Assessment Using Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm for Time-to-Event Endpoints
- Something Needed to Pay Attention in the Use of NNT and NNH
- Tedavi için gerekli sayı (TGS) ve zarar, istenmeyen durum için gerekli sayı (ZGS) kavramları klinisyene ne mesajlar veriyor?
- Communicating the benefits and harms of treatments