Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles.We identified reporting bias in 40 indications comprising around 50 different pharmacological, surgical (e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy), diagnostic (e.g. ultrasound), and preventive (e.g. cancer vaccines) interventions. Regarding pharmacological interventions, cases of reporting bias were, for example, identified in the treatment of the following conditions: depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, pain, migraine, cardiovascular disease, gastric ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome, urinary incontinence, atopic dermatitis, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypercholesterolaemia, thyroid disorders, menopausal symptoms, various types of cancer (e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma), various types of infections (e.g. HIV, influenza and Hepatitis B), and acute trauma. Many cases involved the withholding of study data by manufacturers and regulatory agencies or the active attempt by manufacturers to suppress publication. The ascertained effects of reporting bias included the overestimation of efficacy and the underestimation of safety risks of interventions.In conclusion, reporting bias is a widespread phenomenon in the medical literature. Mandatory prospective registration of trials and public access to study data via results databases need to be introduced on a worldwide scale. This will allow for an independent review of research data, help fulfil ethical obligations towards patients, and ensure a basis for fully-informed decision making in the health care system.

Beate Wieseler and colleagues compare the completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes between clinical study reports and publicly available data. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

More than half of new drugs entering the German healthcare system have not been shown to add benefit. Beate Wieseler and colleagues argue that international drug development processes and policies are responsible and must be reformed

Objective To investigate to what extent three types of documents for reporting clinical trials provide sufficient information for trial evaluation. Design Retrospective analysisData sources Primary studies and corresponding documents (registry reports, clinical study reports, journal publications) from 16 health technology assessments of drugs conducted by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care between 2006 and February 2011. Data analysisWe assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for six items on methods and six on outcomes, and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported." For each document type, we calculated the proportion of studies with complete reporting for methods and outcomes, per item and overall, and compared the findings. ResultsWe identified 268 studies. Publications, study reports and registry reports were available for 192 (72%), 101 (38%), and 78 (29%) studies, respectively. Reporting quality was highest in study reports, which overall provided complete information for 90% of items (1086/1212). Registry reports provided more complete information on outcomes than on methods (overall 330/468 (71%) v 147/468 (31%)); the same applied to publications (594/1152 (52%) v 458/1152 (40%)). In the matched pairs analysis, reporting quality was poorer in registry reports than in study reports for overall methods and outcomes (P<0.001 in each case). Compared with publications, reporting quality was poorer in registry reports for overall methods (P<0.001), but better for outcomes (P=0.005).Conclusion Registry reports and publications insufficiently report clinical trials but may supplement each other. Measures to improve reporting include the mandatory worldwide implementation of adequate standards for results registration. IntroductionA prerequisite of evidence based healthcare is that medical interventions are analysed in clinical trials and the findings from these trials are used to inform decision making in the healthcare system. The selective publication of clinical trials (publication bias) and their outcomes (outcome reporting bias) have been identified as major problems distorting the scientific evidence available. As a result, perception of the effects of healthcare interventions based on published literature is biased towards overestimating benefits and underestimating harms. [1][2][3][4][5] This problem of distorted public record is widely prevalent. 6 To solve the problem, study registration (disclosure at inception that a study is being conducted) and results registration (posting of results after a study has been completed) have been partly implemented using publicly accessible databases. Usually, the details provided at inception and after completion both include information on study methods.Initiatives to promote study registration at inception were launched in the 1960s, 7 and this practice became widely established in 2004 after the editors of medical journals determined that only registered trials would be...

BackgroundThe AGREE II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within six domains. AGREE II also includes two overall assessments (overall guideline quality, recommendation for use). Our aim was to investigate how strongly the 23 AGREE II items influence the two overall assessments.MethodsAn online survey of authors of publications on guideline appraisals with AGREE II and guideline users from a German scientific network was conducted between 10th February 2015 and 30th March 2015. Participants were asked to rate the influence of the AGREE II items on a Likert scale (0 = no influence to 5 = very strong influence). The frequencies of responses and their dispersion were presented descriptively.ResultsFifty-eight of the 376 persons contacted (15.4%) participated in the survey and the data of the 51 respondents with prior knowledge of AGREE II were analysed. Items 7–12 of Domain 3 (rigour of development) and both items of Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In addition, Items 15–17 (clarity of presentation) had a strong influence on the recommendation for use. Great variations were shown for the other items. The main limitation of the survey is the low response rate.ConclusionsIn guideline appraisals using AGREE II, items representing rigour of guideline development and editorial independence seem to have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In order to ensure a transparent approach to reaching the overall assessments, we suggest the inclusion of a recommendation in the AGREE II user manual on how to consider item and domain scores. For instance, the manual could include an a-priori weighting of those items and domains that should have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. The relevance of these assessments within AGREE II could thereby be further specified.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2954-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug's added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The "dossier assessment" is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics ("approved subpopulations").Objective To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources-that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations. Design Retrospective analysis.Data sources All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers. Data analysisWe assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported (including items not reported at all)." For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.Results 15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of...

No abstract

Our study displayed psychological effects associated with long-term solvent exposure in concentrations below German threshold limit values. These findings emphasize the necessity to promote the resolute compliance with occupational safety and health regulations in affected companies.