Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 28 September 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by CMA Impact Inc. in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Vol. 171 (7) , 735-740
- https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1041086
Abstract
Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Interpretation: Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004
- Underpowering in randomized trials reporting a sample size calculationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2003
- Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applicationsBMJ, 2003
- The power of the protocolThe Lancet, 2002
- Investigation of within‐study selective reporting in clinical research: follow‐up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committeeJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2002
- Journals should see original protocols for clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- Publication and related biases.Health Technology Assessment, 2000
- How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data.1997
- Our Patient EarthNew England Journal of Medicine, 1990
- Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities.BMJ, 1980