< Terug naar vorige pagina
Publicatie
Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis
Tijdschriftbijdrage - Tijdschriftartikel
Background
Dissemination and outcome reporting biases are a signifcant problem in clinical research, with farreaching implications for both scientifc understanding and clinical decision-making. This study investigates the prevalence of dissemination- and outcome reporting biases in registered interventional malaria research.
Methods
All malaria interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2020 were identifed. Subsequently, publications that matched the registration were searched. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of registered studies that resulted in subsequent publication of study results, the concordance between registered outcomes, and reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes were compliance with WHO standards for timely
publication (issued in 2017) of summary study results in the respective trial registry (within 12 months of study
completion) or peer-reviewed publication (within 24 months of study completion) was evaluated.
Results
A total of 579 trials were identifed on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 544 met the inclusion criteria. Notably,
almost 36.6% of these trials (199/544) were registered retrospectively, with 129 (23.7%) registered after the frst patient
enrolment and 70 (12.9%) following study completion. Publications were identifed for 351 out of 544 registered
trials (64.5%), involving 1,526,081 study participants. Conversely, publications were not found for 193 of the 544
registrations (35.5%), which aimed to enrol 417,922 study participants. Among these 544 registrations, 444 (81.6%)
did not meet the WHO standard to post summary results within 12 months of primary study completion (the last
visit of the last subject for collection of data on the primary outcome), while 386 out of 544 registrations (71.0%)
failed to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of primary study completion. Discrepancies were noted in the reported primary outcomes compared to the registered primary outcomes in 47.6% (222/466)
of the published trials, and an even higher discordance rate of 73.2% (341/466 publications) for secondary outcomes.
Conclusions
Non-dissemination remains a signifcant issue in interventional malaria research, with most trials failing to meet WHO standards for timely dissemination of summary results and peer-reviewed journal publications.
Additionally, outcome reporting bias is highly prevalent across malaria publications. To address these challenges, it
is crucial to implement strategies that enhance the timely reporting of research fndings and reduce both non-dissemination and outcome reporting bias
Dissemination and outcome reporting biases are a signifcant problem in clinical research, with farreaching implications for both scientifc understanding and clinical decision-making. This study investigates the prevalence of dissemination- and outcome reporting biases in registered interventional malaria research.
Methods
All malaria interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2020 were identifed. Subsequently, publications that matched the registration were searched. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of registered studies that resulted in subsequent publication of study results, the concordance between registered outcomes, and reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes were compliance with WHO standards for timely
publication (issued in 2017) of summary study results in the respective trial registry (within 12 months of study
completion) or peer-reviewed publication (within 24 months of study completion) was evaluated.
Results
A total of 579 trials were identifed on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 544 met the inclusion criteria. Notably,
almost 36.6% of these trials (199/544) were registered retrospectively, with 129 (23.7%) registered after the frst patient
enrolment and 70 (12.9%) following study completion. Publications were identifed for 351 out of 544 registered
trials (64.5%), involving 1,526,081 study participants. Conversely, publications were not found for 193 of the 544
registrations (35.5%), which aimed to enrol 417,922 study participants. Among these 544 registrations, 444 (81.6%)
did not meet the WHO standard to post summary results within 12 months of primary study completion (the last
visit of the last subject for collection of data on the primary outcome), while 386 out of 544 registrations (71.0%)
failed to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of primary study completion. Discrepancies were noted in the reported primary outcomes compared to the registered primary outcomes in 47.6% (222/466)
of the published trials, and an even higher discordance rate of 73.2% (341/466 publications) for secondary outcomes.
Conclusions
Non-dissemination remains a signifcant issue in interventional malaria research, with most trials failing to meet WHO standards for timely dissemination of summary results and peer-reviewed journal publications.
Additionally, outcome reporting bias is highly prevalent across malaria publications. To address these challenges, it
is crucial to implement strategies that enhance the timely reporting of research fndings and reduce both non-dissemination and outcome reporting bias
Tijdschrift: Malaria Journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Issue: 1
Volume: 23
Jaar van publicatie:2024
Trefwoorden:ClinicalTrials.gov, Dissemination bias, Malaria research trials, Non-dissemination, Outcome reporting bias, Publication bias, Trial registration, WHO dissemination standards, Parageneeskundige wetenschappen, Microbiologie
Toegankelijkheid:Open