title: Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Healthcare professionals and patients could be negatively influenced in their judgments by articles and meta-analyses presenting selective outcome reporting. Clinical trials should be transparent from inception to the publication of results. To this end, trial prospective registration is an ethical and scientific requirement that have shown to be effective in preventing selective reporting of outcomes. However, even journals with a clear pre-registration policy publish trial results that were retrospectively registered.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Analyses of registration of randomized clinical trials recently published in top specialty journals and of meta-analyses with suspicion of including trials with outcome reporting bias have shown that retrospective registration is in the range from 56 to 76 %. This translates into publication of primary endpoints that differ from those included in the registry: some 30 % of trials showed discrepancies between the primary endpoint in the trial registry and the article. Furthermore, it has been shown that 8 % of all clinical trials published by 6 high-impact ICMJE-member journals was retrospectively registered after primary endpoint ascertainment could have had taken place, raising concerns that endpoints may not have been pre-specified, or were changed. With regards to meta-analyses, 34 % of Cochrane systematic reviews included one or more trials with a high suspicion of selective reporting bias for the primary outcome.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective registration of trials may foster selective outcome reporting unless journal editors implement specific quality control processes aiming to prevent or minimize this type of bias. Prospective registration of trials-and protocol public disclosure if proven effective in future studies-prevents outcome reporting bias, a must to ensure clinicians and patients have access to reliable clinical trial results. Journal editors should enforce, rather than encourage, appropriate measures to ensure publication of trials free of outcome reporting bias.
authors.affiliation: Clinical Research, BUC (Biosciences UAM+CSIC) Program, International Campus of Excellence, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ciudad Uniiversitaria de Cantoblanco, Einstein 3, Madrid, E-28049, Spain. Rafael.dalre@fuam.uam.es.
authors.forename: Rafael
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Dal-Ré
authors.affiliation: Cochrane Croatia and Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
authors.forename: Ana
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Marušić
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards; D017594:Publication Bias
keywords: Clinical trials; Clinicaltrials.gov.; Outcome reporting bias; Registration; Reporting bias; Retrospective registration