We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Skip main navigation

A Paper Comparing Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in RCTs by Mathieu, et al.

In this article, Sylvain Matheiu and his colleagues investigate the impacts of trial registration on reporting bias.
© Center for Effective Global Action
Registries were developed to address the “file drawer problem” and encourage more complete reporting of results. But because they are a relatively recent platform – the American Economics Association (AEA) RCT registry was recently established in 2012 – Sylvain Mathieu and four of his colleagues in the medical sciences decided to examine the impact of registries on reporting.
In 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) began requiring the registration of clinical trials. As a precondition for publication in a journal, investigators were required to disclose information about their trial before enrolling participants.
In order to assess the prevalence of primary outcome reporting bias, the authors selected and examined 323 cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology RCTs published in medical and specialty journals. Their main objective was “to help achieve transparency in results and to make information about the existence and design of clinical trials publicly available,” with the prediction that knowledge of these trials would reduce the risk of selective reporting.
Their main questions were: 1. How many registered studies were eventually published in high impact journals? 2. Of those studies, how many pre-registered primary outcomes were reported in the published articles? 3. What was the proportion of statistically significant reported primary outcomes?
They also sought to compare general medical journals and specialty journals in terms of the proportion of registered trials and differences in primary outcomes.
Using the MEDLINE online medical database for studies and RCTs, the authors selected studies from high impact journals and established for each study, the funding sources, the number of reported outcomes, and their registration status.
Mathieu and his colleagues found that, while nearly half of the selected trials were adequately registered, 27.6% of trials had never been registered 14% were registered only after the study was complete, and 12% were registered without any clear description of the study’s primary outcomes. They found no significant differences in reporting between general and speciality journals, though there were more adequately registered trials within general medical journals.
So does this mean that registries aren’t as useful as we may have hoped? Consider the AEA RCT registry. Though it was established less than five years ago, there are already over 1,000 registered trials on it, trials that can be accessed by readers looking to make more informed decisions regarding a study’s credibility or researchers attempting to accurately replicate a study.
If executed correctly, trial registration can improve accountability in planning and reporting and can act as a safeguard against publication bias. Mathieu and his colleagues believe that the scientific community should endorse and adhere to these requirements, being cognizant of deadlines and using clarity when instructing authors on submission guidelines. They suggest quality control procedures and conclude that, with careful implementation, trial registration may ensure more robust results and unbiased reporting. How can we inform more people of the significance of registries? Why might people be hesitant to register their studies?
You can read the whole paper by clicking on the link in the SEE ALSO section at the bottom of this page.
Reference
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, and Ravaud P. 2009. “Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials.” JAMA 302 (9): 977–84. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1242.
© Center for Effective Global Action
This article is from the free online

Transparent and Open Social Science Research

Created by
FutureLearn - Learning For Life

Our purpose is to transform access to education.

We offer a diverse selection of courses from leading universities and cultural institutions from around the world. These are delivered one step at a time, and are accessible on mobile, tablet and desktop, so you can fit learning around your life.

We believe learning should be an enjoyable, social experience, so our courses offer the opportunity to discuss what you’re learning with others as you go, helping you make fresh discoveries and form new ideas.
You can unlock new opportunities with unlimited access to hundreds of online short courses for a year by subscribing to our Unlimited package. Build your knowledge with top universities and organisations.

Learn more about how FutureLearn is transforming access to education