Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. Bias in reporting clinical trials. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials.
Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.
                To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.
                Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.
                Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.
                One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.
                The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent. There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research.
                In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.
                Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p=.461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome.
                It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE. The primary aim of the present study was to identify possible occurrence of selective reporting of the results of clinical trials to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. Selective reporting may lead to poorly informed action or inaction by regulatory authorities.
                In 1987, 274 clinical drug trials were notified to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. By December 1993, final reports had been received from 68 of these trials and statements that the trial had been suspended from 24 trials. The sponsors of the non-reported trials were requested to report the outcome. The outcomes, if any, of all reported and non-reported trials were classified as positive, inconclusive or negative.
                The total number of trials with positive, inconclusive or negative outcome were 111, 33 and 44, respectively; the outcomes of 86 trials could not be assessed. Final reports were received from 42/111 (38%) trials with positive, 6/33 (18%) with inconclusive and 9/44 (20%) with negative outcomes.
                Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authority than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes. The reporting of outcomes within published randomized trials has previously been shown to be incomplete, biased and inconsistent with study protocols. We sought to determine whether outcome reporting bias would be present in a cohort of government-funded trials subjected to rigorous peer review.
                We compared protocols for randomized trials approved for funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medical Research Council of Canada) from 1990 to 1998 with subsequent reports of the trials identified in journal publications. Characteristics of reported and unreported outcomes were recorded from the protocols and publications. Incompletely reported outcomes were defined as those with insufficient data provided in publications for inclusion in meta-analyses. An overall odds ratio measuring the association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance was calculated stratified by trial. Finally, primary outcomes specified in trial protocols were compared with those reported in publications.
                We identified 48 trials with 68 publications and 1402 outcomes. The median number of participants per trial was 299, and 44% of the trials were published in general medical journals. A median of 31% (10th-90th percentile range 5%-67%) of outcomes measured to assess the efficacy of an intervention (efficacy outcomes) and 59% (0%-100%) of those measured to assess the harm of an intervention (harm outcomes) per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant efficacy outcomes had a higher odds than nonsignificant efficacy outcomes of being fully reported (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval 1.5-5.0). Primary outcomes differed between protocols and publications for 40% of the trials.
                Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials. To determine the extent to which publication is influenced by study outcome.
                A cohort of studies submitted to a hospital ethics committee over 10 years were examined retrospectively by reviewing the protocols and by questionnaire. The primary method of analysis was Cox's proportional hazards model.
                University hospital, Sydney, Australia.
                748 eligible studies submitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee between 1979 and 1988.
                Time to publication.
                Response to the questionnaire was received for 520 (70%) of the eligible studies. Of the 218 studies analysed with tests of significance, those with positive results (P < 0.05) were much more likely to be published than those with negative results (P > or = 0.10) (hazard ratio 2.32 (95% confidence interval 1.47 to 3.66), P = 0.0003), with a significantly shorter time to publication (median 4.8 v 8.0 years). This finding was even stronger for the group of 130 clinical trials (hazard ratio 3.13 (1.76 to 5.58). P = 0.0001), with median times to publication of 4.7 and 8.0 years respectively. These results were not materially changed after adjusting for other significant predictors of publication. Studies with indefinite conclusions (0.05 < or = P < 0.10) tended to have an even lower publication rate and longer time to publication than studies with negative results (hazard ratio 0.39 (0.13 to 1.12), P = 0.08). For the 103 studies in which outcome was rated qualitatively, there was no clear cut evidence of publication bias, although the number of studies in this group was not large.
                This study confirms the evidence of publication bias found in other studies and identifies delay in publication as an additional important factor. The study results support the need for prospective registration of trials to avoid publication bias and also support restricting the selection of trials to those started before a common date in undertaking systematic reviews. Publication bias is widely appreciated, but considerable time and effort are needed to locate and obtain data from unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), those published in non-English language journals or those reported in the gray literature; for this publication, we will call this collection of trials the "gray+literature." However, excluding such trials from systematic reviews could introduce bias and give rise to misleading conclusions.
                We aimed to explore and quantify the impact of inclusion of gray+ literature on the results of all completed individual patient data (IPD) reviews coordinated by our group (13 meta-analyses). For each IPD review, results were calculated for RCTs fully published in English language journals and RCTs fully published in English language journals and the gray+literature.
                The IPD meta-analyses based only on RCTs that were fully published in English language journals tended to give more favorable results than those that included RCTs from the gray+literature. Although in most cases the addition of gray+data gave less encouraging results, moving the estimated treatment effect toward a null result, the direction of effect was not always predictable.
                We recommend that all systematic reviews should at least attempt to identify trials reported in the gray+literature and, where possible, obtain data from them. Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results.
                We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.
                451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication.
                In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry. Because of recent concerns about conflicts of interest and published research, the author analyzed 107 controlled clinical trials. Studies were classified as favoring either a new therapy or a traditional therapy, and as being supported by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or as being generally supported. Seventy-one per cent of the trials favored new therapies; 43% of these were funded by pharmaceutical firms. Of the 31 trials favoring traditional therapy, only four (13%) were supported by a pharmaceutical firm. There was a statistically significant association between the source of funding and the outcome of the study (p = 0.002). Few trials supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers favored traditional therapy; some reasons for this finding may include selection of drugs likely to be proven efficacious, Type II errors (false-negative studies), and fear of discontinuation of funding should such studies be submitted. Important clinical information may be lost if negative studies are not published.
Trials published to date lack information on clinically relevant end-points. Existing data is derived from small trials at high risk of bias, which concentrate on physiological measures. Their results are inconclusive. Further large and high quality trials with more appropriate outcomes are warranted.