Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Publication of complete trial results is essential if people are to be able to make well-informed decisions about health care. Selective reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a common problem.


OBJECTIVE
To systematically review studies of cohorts of RCTs to compare the content of trial reports with the information contained in their protocols, or entries in a trial registry.


METHODS
We conducted electronic searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to August 2010); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to August 2010); ISI Web of Science (1900 to August 2010) and the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 3, 2010), checked reference lists, and asked authors of eligible studies to identify further studies. Studies were not excluded based on language of publication or our assessment of their quality.


METHODS
Published or unpublished cohort studies comparing the content of protocols or trial registry entries with published trial reports.


METHODS
Data were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias in the cohort studies was assessed in relation to follow up and selective reporting of outcomes. Results are presented separately for the comparison of published reports to protocols and trial registry entries.


RESULTS
We included 16 studies assessing a median of 54 RCTs (range: 2 to 362). Twelve studies compared protocols to published reports and four compared trial registry entries to published reports. In two studies, eligibility criteria differed between the protocol and publication in 19% and 100% RCTs. In one study, 16% (9/58) of the reports included the same sample size calculation as the protocol. In one study, 6% (4/63) of protocol-report pairs gave conflicting information regarding the method of allocation concealment, and 67% (49/73) of blinded studies reported discrepant information on who was blinded. In one study unacknowledged discrepancies were found for methods of handling protocol deviations (44%; 19/43), missing data (80%; 39/49), primary outcome analyses (60%; 25/42) and adjusted analyses (82%; 23/28). One study found that of 13 protocols specifying subgroup analyses, 12 of these 13 trials reported only some, or none, of these. Two studies found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to nonsignificant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.4 to 4.7). Across the studies, at least one primary outcome was changed, introduced, or omitted in 4-50% of trial reports.


CONCLUSIONS
Discrepancies between protocols or trial registry entries and trial reports were common, although reasons for these were not discussed in the reports. Full transparency will be possible only when protocols are made publicly available or the quality and extent of information included in trial registries is improved, and trialists explain substantial changes in their reports.
Institute of Child Health, University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, England, UK, L12 2AP.
Kerry
K
Dwan
Douglas G
DG
Altman
Lynne
L
Cresswell
Michaela
M
Blundell
Carrol L
CL
Gamble
Paula R
PR
Williamson
D002985:Clinical Protocols / Q000592:standards; D015331:Cohort Studies; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D017594:Publication Bias; D011897:Random Allocation; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D012042:Registries / Q000592:standards*
J Eval Clin Pract. 2002 Aug;8(3):353-9
12164983
Control Clin Trials. 1987 Dec;8(4):343-53
3442991
Stat Med. 2000 Dec 30;19(24):3325-36
11122498
PLoS Med. 2008 Nov 25;5(11):e217; discussion e217
19067477
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):640-5
9310565
JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65
15161896
CMAJ. 2004 Sep 28;171(7):735-40
15451835
Swiss Med Wkly. 2008 Apr 5;138(13-14):197-203
18389392
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;62(9):967-73
19635403
J Clin Oncol. 1986 Oct;4(10):1529-41
3760920
PLoS Med. 2008 Nov 25;5(11):e230
19067481
BMJ. 2011 Jan 06;342:c7153
21212122
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 17;358(3):252-60
18199864
Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993 Apr 28;Doc No 50:[4967 words; 53 paragraphs]
8306005
Lancet. 2008 Jul 19;372(9634):201
18640445
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):MR000006
19160345
Trials. 2009 Jul 22;10:56
19624821
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 20;24(24):3933-8
16921045
Ugeskr Laeger. 2005 Aug 22;167(34):3189-91
16117920
J Evid Based Med. 2009 Feb;2(1):1-7
21348976
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2007 Nov;132(44):2313-7
17957593
Lancet. 2003 Mar 22;361(9362):1015-6
12660062
BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1171-3
12775615
Trials. 2009 Dec 16;10:116
20015404
Croat Med J. 2006 Feb;47(1):181-2; author reply 182-3
16489714
JAMA. 2009 Sep 2;302(9):977-84
19724045
JAMA. 1992 Jan 15;267(3):374-8
1727960
CMAJ. 2005 Mar 29;172(7):857; author reply 857
15795393
J Med Ethics. 2008 Sep;34(9):e20
18757621
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;64(6):583-93
21163620
Stat Methods Med Res. 2005 Oct;14(5):515-24
16248351
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 3;153(3):158-66
20679560
PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 24;7(3):e1000251
20352064
BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):753
15681569
AIDS. 2005 Nov 4;19(16):1885-96
16227797
BMC Public Health. 2006 Jun 22;6:165
16792794
BMJ. 2008 Dec 04;337:a2299
19056791
BMJ. 2009 May 12;338:b1732
19435763
BMJ. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1049
15817527
Can J Anaesth. 2007 May;54(5):380-8
17470890
BMJ. 2004 Jan 3;328(7430):22-4
14703540
Lancet. 2004 Sep 11-17;364(9438):911-2
15364170
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Nov 1;154(9):873-80
11682370
N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 12;361(20):1963-71
19907043
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 Summer;20(3):351-5
15446765
Oncologist. 2008 Sep;13(9):925-9
18794216
JAMA. 1998 Jan 28;279(4):281-6
9450711
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996 Feb 21;88(3-4):206-7
8632495
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 22;357(21):2189-94
18032770
Neurology. 2006 Sep 26;67(6):973-9
17000963
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Oct;53(10):973-9
11027928
JAMA. 2008 Apr 16;299(15):1813-7
18413875
PLoS One. 2008 Aug 28;3(8):e3081
18769481
BMJ. 2005 Jul 2;331(7507):19
15967761
BMJ. 2010 Feb 15;340:c365
20156912
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998 Aug;46(2):147-50
9723823
Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867-72
1672966
PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e19
17227134
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jan 10;30(2):210-6
22162583
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Mar;61(3):190-3
17325393
Stat Med. 2005 May 30;24(10):1547-61
15580591
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 29;362(17):1641; author reply 1641-2
20427815
JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1645-6
16609085
Transplantation. 2005 Dec 15;80(11):1525-34
16371918
Arch Intern Med. 2008 Mar 24;168(6):632-42
18362256
Ann Fam Med. 2009 Nov-Dec;7(6):542-6
19901314
PLoS Med. 2009 Sep;6(9):e1000144
19901971