Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials—ESORT)
Name
Odutayo-2017-Association between trial registr.pdf
Size
351.63 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
66b478185dc21fcd04c638255be17800
Author(s)
Odutayo, Ayodele
Emdin, Connor A
Shakir, Mubeen
Copsey, Bethan
Dutton, Susan
Chiocchia, Virginia
Schlussel, Michael
Dutton, Peter
Roberts, Corran
Altman, Douglas G
Date Issued
March 2017
Journal
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Citation
Odutayo, Ayodele; Emdin, Connor A; Hsiao, Allan J; Shakir, Mubeen; Copsey, Bethan; Dutton, Susan; Chiocchia, Virginia, et al. “Association Between Trial Registration and Positive Study Findings: Cross Sectional Study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials—ESORT).” BMJ (March 2017): j917 © 2017 British Medical Journal Publishing Group
Version
Final published version
Abstract
Objective To assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were registered were less likely to report positive study findings compared with RCTs that were not registered and whether the association varied by funding source.
Design Cross sectional study.
Study sample All primary RCTs published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by November 2013. Trial registration was determined based on the report of a trial registration number in published RCTs or the identification of the trial in a search of trial registries. Trials were separated into prospectively and retrospectively registered studies.
Main outcome measure Association between trial registration and positive study findings.
Results 1122 eligible RCTs were identified, of which 593 (52.9%) were registered and 529 (47.1%) were not registered. Overall, registration was marginally associated with positive study findings (adjusted risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98), even with stratification as prospectively and retrospectively registered trials (0.87, 0.74 to 1.03 and 0.88, 0.78 to 1.00, respectively). The interaction term between overall registration and funding source was marginally statistically significant and relative risk estimates were imprecise (0.75, 0.63 to 0.89 for non-industry funded and 1.03, 0.79 to 1.36 for industry funded, P interaction=0.046). Furthermore, a statistically significant interaction was not maintained in sensitivity analyses. Within each stratum of funding source, relative risk estimates were also imprecise for the association between positive study findings and prospective and retrospective registration.
Conclusion Among published RCTs, there was little evidence of a difference in positive study findings between registered and non-registered clinical trials, even with stratification by timing of registration. Relative risk estimates were imprecise in subgroups of non-industry and industry funded trials.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Economics
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j917
