title: ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in conference abstracts in systematic reviews is controversial, partly because study design information and risk of bias is often not fully reported in the abstract. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) requires trial registration of abstracts submitted for their annual conference as of 2007. Our goal was to assess the feasibility of obtaining study design information critical to systematic reviews, but not typically included in conference abstracts, from the trial registration record.
  
  
  METHODS
  We reviewed all conference abstracts presented at the ARVO meetings from 2007 through 2009, and identified 496 RCTs; 154 had a single matching registration record in ClinicalTrials.gov. Two individuals independently extracted information from the abstract and the ClinicalTrials.gov record, including study design, sample size, inclusion criteria, masking, interventions, outcomes, funder, and investigator name and contact information. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We assessed the frequencies of reporting variables appearing in the abstract and the trial register and assessed agreement of information reported in both sources.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We found a substantial amount of study design information in the ClinicalTrials.gov record that was unavailable in the corresponding conference abstract, including eligibility criteria associated with gender (83%; 128/154); masking or blinding of study participants (53%, 82/154), persons administering treatment (30%, 46/154), and persons measuring the outcomes (40%, 61/154)); and number of study centers (58%; 90/154). Only 34% (52/154) of abstracts explicitly described a primary outcome, but a primary outcome was included in the "Primary Outcome" field in the ClinicalTrials.gov record for 82% (126/154) of studies. One or more study interventions were reported in each abstract, but agreed exactly with those reported in ClinicalTrials.gov only slightly more than half the time (88/154, 56%). We found no contact information for study investigators in the abstract, but this information was available in less than one quarter of ClinicalTrial.gov records (17%; 26/154).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  RCT design information not reported in conference abstracts is often available in the corresponding ClinicalTrials.gov registration record. Sometimes there is conflicting information reported in the two sources and further contact with the trial investigators may still be required.
authors.affiliation: Center for Clinical Trials, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. rscherer@jhsph.edu
authors.forename: Roberta W
authors.initials: RW
authors.lastname: Scherer
authors.forename: Lynn
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Huynh
authors.forename: Ann-Margret
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Ervin
authors.forename: Jakeisha
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Taylor
authors.forename: Kay
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Dickersin
mesh_terms: D000043:Abstracting and Indexing; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D016208:Databases, Factual; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination / Q000379:methods*; D017594:Publication Bias; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012042:Registries; D012107:Research Design; D012196:Review Literature as Topic