Differences between information in registries and articles did not influence publication acceptance

Abstract

Differences between registered and reported information are not decisive for rejection. Editors should assess consistency between registries and articles to address selective reporting.

Outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: why monitoring matters

“…One empirical study found that the chance of rejection from high ranked journals was not very different for trials with (79%) or without (71%) primary outcome discrepancies. 11 Instead of trying to fool each other, we should try to be transparent.…”

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals

“…One particular form of bias, known as outcome reporting bias, occurs when trialists fail to report prespecified outcomes, report primary outcomes that were not prespecified, report statistically significant secondary outcomes as primary outcomes, or report nonsignificant primary outcomes as secondary outcomes [1,2]. This form of bias is well documented in the medical literature [3,4,5,6,7,8,9].…”

Unfounded Claims of Improved Functional Outcomes Attributed to Follistatin Gene Therapy in Inclusion Body Myositis

“…12 Peer-reviewers often do not recognize, 13 and manuscripts appear to not be more likely to be rejected for, outcome measure alteration. 14 The investigators used a post hoc created "annualized 6MWT" outcome measure. Whereas a fixed time-point outcome measure, such as the 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance at 52 weeks, is a real objectively defined measure, an "annualized 6MWT" is an imaginary one that will change based on what time-point to be annualized is chosen for each patient.…”