Selective reporting bias due to discrepancies between registered and published outcomes in osteoarthritis trials
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: Outcome reporting bias (ORB) occurs when outcomes planned in a study protocol are subsequently not reported or are partially reported. Our aim was to analyze ORB in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about conservative interventions for osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing registered protocols and published manuscripts, as well as association between study funding type and intervention type, and ORB in those RCTs. Materials & methods: We analyzed RCTs that were published in a peer-review journal and analyzed any type of conservative intervention for treatment of OA in humans that reported in the manuscript registration in a public clinical trial registry and provided unique registration identifier. We extracted data indicating ORB by comparing outcomes in protocol and published article, and characteristics of trials. Results: In 190 (57%) of 334 included RCTs, it was indicated in the manuscript that a trial was registered. In 48% of trials we found discrepancies in number, type or time point of primary efficacy outcome between protocol and manuscript. Significantly less discrepancies in primary efficacy outcomes between protocols and published articles were found in trials funded by a commercial sponsor (p = 0.0062) and trials of pharmacological interventions (p = 0.0016). Conclusion: Trials about conservative therapies for OA have high prevalence of discrepancies between protocol and publication, and frequent ORB. This may mislead readers of published results because it has been shown that ORB can lead to both overestimation and underestimation of effects of interventions, depending on the intervention and outcome. Efforts to prevent nonregistration of protocols and selective reporting are needed.
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_file.docx)
- Download
- 115.80 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
1.
Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3(8), e3081 (2008).
2.
Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PLoS ONE 8(7), e66844 (2013).
3.
Reporting Biases. Cochrane Handbook for Reviews of Interventions (2019). https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/reporting-biases
4.
Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 340, c365 (2010).
5.
Hutton JL, Williamson PR. Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies. J. R. Stat. Soc. 49(3), 359–370 (2000).
• Definition of selective outcome reporting.
6.
Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Chan AW, Gamble C, Dwan KM, Williamson PR. Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. BMJ 362, k3802 (2018).
7.
Rongen JJ, Hannink G. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials of orthopaedic surgical interventions. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 98(5), 403–409 (2016).
• Comparison of registered and published outcomes in trials about orthopedic surgical interventions.
8.
Zhang S, Liang F, Li WF. Comparison between publicly accessible publications, registries, and protocols of Phase III trials indicated persistence of selective outcome reporting. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 91, 87–94 (2017).
9.
De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Croat. Med. J. 45(5), 531–532 (2004).
• Explanation of the importance of trial registration.
10.
Shinohara K, Tajika A, Imai H, Takeshima N, Hayasaka Y, Furukawa TA. Protocol registration and selective outcome reporting in recent psychiatry trials: new antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapies. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 132(6), 489–498 (2015).
11.
Bradley HA, Rucklidge JJ, Mulder RT. A systematic review of trial registration and selective outcome reporting in psychotherapy randomized controlled trials. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 135(1), 65–77 (2017).
12.
Scott A, Rucklidge JJ, Mulder RT. Is mandatory prospective trial registration working to prevent publication of unregistered trials and selective outcome reporting? An observational study of five psychiatry journals that mandate prospective clinical trial registration. PLoS ONE 10(8), e0133718 (2015).
13.
Rankin J, Ross A, Baker J, O'Brien M, Scheckel C, Vassar M. Selective outcome reporting in obesity clinical trials: a cross-sectional review. Clin. Obes. 7(4), 245–254 (2017).
14.
Raghav KP, Mahajan S, Yao JC et al. From protocols to publications: a study in selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials in oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(31), 3583–3590 (2015).
15.
Boric K, Boric M, Dosenovic S et al. Authors' lack of awareness and use of core outcome set on postoperative pain in children is hindering comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(5), 463–470 (2018).
16.
Boric K, Dosenovic S, Jelicic Kadic A, Boric M, Jeric M, Puljak L. Efficacy and safety outcomes in systematic reviews of interventions for postoperative pain in children: comparison against the recommended core outcome set. Pain Med. 19(11), 2316–2321 (2018).
17.
Dosenovic S, Jelicic Kadic A, Jeric M et al. Efficacy and safety outcome domains and outcome measures in systematic reviews of neuropathic pain conditions. Clin. J. Pain 34(7), 674–684 (2017).
18.
Dosenovic S, Nikolic Z, Ivancev B, Kadic AJ, Puljak L. Awareness and acceptability of IMMPACT core outcome set for chronic pain among surveyed neuropathic pain authors. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 8(9), 671–683 (2019).
19.
Puljak L, Dosenovic S, Boric K. Importance of consistent outcomes in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews about anesthesiology and pain. Pain Manag. 8(4), 251–253 (2018).
20.
Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 344, d7202 (2012).
21.
Saric L, Vucic K, Dragicevic K et al. Comparison of conference abstracts and full-text publications of randomized controlled trials presented at four consecutive World Congresses of Pain: Reporting quality and agreement of results. Eur. J. Pain 23(1), 107–116 (2019).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 1265 - 1273
PubMed: 31739691
Copyright
© 2019 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Received: 3 June 2019
Accepted: 21 August 2019
Published online: 19 November 2019
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Selective reporting bias due to discrepancies between registered and published outcomes in osteoarthritis trials. (2019) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0068
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Diana Buitrago-Garcia, Samia Mehouachi, Thomas Agoritsas, Michele Iudici, Denis Mongin, Adequacy of trial registration and consistency in outcome reporting in rheumatology RCTs: A meta-research study, Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2026.152926, 77, (152926), (2026).
- Yutong Wang, Feiyang Guo, Xiyuan Chen, Rongkang Yu, Danchen Qin, Fang Hua, Selective outcome reporting among randomized controlled trials published in leading dental journals: A research-on-research study, Journal of Dentistry, 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105448, 151, (105448), (2024).
- Livia da Rosa Oliveira, Rokaia Ahmed Elagami, Thais Marchezini Reis, Tamara Kerber Tedesco, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Mariana Minatel Braga, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials on Dental Caries in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Research Study, Caries Research, 10.1159/000542108, 59, 3, (207-218), (2024).
- Robin Holtedahl, Jens Ivar Brox, Compliance with requirements for registration and reporting of results in trials of mesenchymal stromal cells for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review, BMJ Open, 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081343, 14, 6, (e081343), (2024).
- Cynthia M.C. Lemmens, Suzan van Amerongen, Eva M. Strijbis, Joep Killestein, Outcome Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials Researching Disease-Modifying Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis, Neurology, 10.1212/WNL.0000000000208032, 102, 6, (2024).
- Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses, BMJ Open, 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076264, 13, 10, (e076264), (2023).
- Rokaia Ahmed Elagami, Tamara Kerber Tedesco, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Gabriela Seabra da Silva, Mariana Minatel Braga, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Daniela Prócida Raggio, Selective outcome reporting in paediatric dentistry restorative treatment randomised clinical trials—A meta‐research, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, 10.1111/ipd.13024, 33, 1, (89-98), (2022).
- G. Peat, M.J. Thomas, Osteoarthritis year in review 2020: epidemiology & therapy, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 10.1016/j.joca.2020.10.007, 29, 2, (180-189), (2021).
- Antonija Penić, Dinka Begić, Karolina Balajić, Martin Kowalski, Ana Marušić, Livia Puljak, Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors, BMJ Open, 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035168, 10, 4, (e035168), (2020).