title: Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Details about the type of analysis (e.g., intent to treat [ITT]) and definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in the analysis) are necessary for interpreting a clinical trial's findings. Our objective was to compare the description of types of analyses and criteria for including participants in the publication (i.e., what was reported) with descriptions in the corresponding internal company documents (i.e., what was planned and what was done). Trials were for off-label uses of gabapentin sponsored by Pfizer and Parke-Davis, and documents were obtained through litigation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For each trial, we compared internal company documents (protocols, statistical analysis plans, and research reports, all unpublished), with publications. One author extracted data and another verified, with a third person verifying discordant items and a sample of the rest. Extracted data included the number of participants randomized and analyzed for efficacy, and types of analyses for efficacy and safety and their definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in each type of analysis). We identified 21 trials, 11 of which were published randomized controlled trials, and that provided the documents needed for planned comparisons. For three trials, there was disagreement on the number of randomized participants between the research report and publication. Seven types of efficacy analyses were described in the protocols, statistical analysis plans, and publications, including ITT and six others. The protocol or publication described ITT using six different definitions, resulting in frequent disagreements between the two documents (i.e., different numbers of participants were included in the analyses).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Descriptions of analyses conducted did not agree between internal company documents and what was publicly reported. Internal company documents provide extensive documentation of methods planned and used, and trial findings, and should be publicly accessible. Reporting standards for randomized controlled trials should recommend transparent descriptions and definitions of analyses performed and which study participants are excluded.
authors: Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
authors: S Swaroop
authors: SS
authors: Vedula
authors: Tianjing
authors: T
authors: Li
authors: Kay
authors: K
authors: Dickersin
mesh_terms: D000588:Amines / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003509:Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004282:Documentation; D004345:Drug Industry / Q000941:ethics; D000077206:Gabapentin; D006801:Humans; D056687:Off-Label Use; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D058028:Research Report / Q000592:standards; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014342:Truth Disclosure / Q000941:ethics; D005680:gamma-Aminobutyric Acid / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*
chemical_list: D000588:Amines; D003509:Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; D005680:gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; D000077206:Gabapentin
references: Pain. 2008 Aug 31;138(2):255-266
references: 18258368
references: PLoS Med. 2008 Nov 25;5(11):e230
references: 19067481
references: N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 17;358(3):252-60
references: 18199864
references: Trials. 2011 Feb 28;12:58
references: 21356072
references: BMJ. 2000 Apr 8;320(7240):1007-8
references: 10753165
references: Fed Regist. 1998 Sep 16;63(179):49583-98
references: 10185190
references: Clin Ther. 2003 Jan;25(1):81-104
references: 12637113
references: Open Med. 2009 May 12;3(2):e51-3
references: 19946393
references: JAMA. 1998 Dec 2;280(21):1831-6
references: 9846777
references: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;66(2):251-2
references: 10071116
references: N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 30;367(9):863-4
references: 22873430
references: Bipolar Disord. 2000 Sep;2(3 Pt 2):249-55
references: 11249802
references: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jul 15;22(14):2909-17
references: 15254060
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49163
references: 23166608
references: CMAJ. 2001 Nov 13;165(10):1339-41
references: 11760981
references: N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3;364(9):852-60
references: 21366476
references: PLoS Med. 2004 Dec;1(3):e60
references: 15562322
references: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:2
references: 11336663
references: JAMA. 2012 May 2;307(17):1861-4
references: 22550202
references: Bipolar Disord. 2002 Oct;4(5):296-301
references: 12479661
references: BMJ. 2008 Dec 04;337:a2299
references: 19056791
references: Headache. 2001 Feb;41(2):119-28
references: 11251695
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Mar-Apr;26(2):483-91
references: 17339677
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Dec;30(12):2318-27
references: 22147859
references: N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 12;361(20):1963-71
references: 19907043
references: Pain. 2002 Oct;99(3):557-566
references: 12406532
references: JAMA. 2001 Apr 18;285(15):1992-5
references: 11308436
references: PLoS Med. 2008 Nov 25;5(11):e217; discussion e217
references: 19067477
references: J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000 Oct;20(4):280-5
references: 11027910
references: BMJ. 2011 Jun 20;342:d3838
references: 21690163
references: J Fam Pract. 2002 Nov;51(11):969-71
references: 12485553
references: PLoS Med. 2012;9(4):e1001201
references: 22505850
references: Trials. 2012 Aug 13;13:136
references: 22888801
references: J Clin Psychiatry. 2006 Mar;67(3):473-7
references: 16649836
references: BMJ. 1999 Sep 11;319(7211):670-4
references: 10480822
references: J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):834-40
references: 20346629
references: BMJ. 2010 Jun 14;340:c2697
references: 20547685
references: PLoS Med. 2009 Feb 24;6(2):e1000038
references: 19243217