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

Howard, Benjamin; Scott, Jared; Blubaugh, Mark; Roepke, Brie; Scheckel, Caleb; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180986

Cited by 32 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, when a randomized controlled trial (RCT) contains an outcome deemed "not significant" and is selectively removed from a trial, the validity of the RCT may be questioned. Previous studies have already established outcome reporting bias as an issue within neurology, noting that only 40% of analyzed RCTs were preregistered and, therefore, prespecified their analysis [15]. This same study found outcome reporting inconsistencies that often favored statistically significant results [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…In neurology, an audit of randomized clinical trials published in neurology journals found 180 outcome inconsistencies across 180 trials, with most inconsistencies favoring changes in accordance with statistically significant results. Additionally, only 55% of neurology trials were prospectively registered [15], providing indications that neurology researchers are not adhering to transparency and reproducibility practices early in research planning. Reproducible research and open science practices are widely endorsed by a large proportion of authors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research

Rauh

Torgerson

Johnson

et al. 2020

Res Integr Peer Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications. Methods: The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilottested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access. Results: Our search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Conclusions: Currently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research

Rauh

Torgerson

Johnson

et al. 2020

Res Integr Peer Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Howard et al . assessed 180 neurology clinical trials, finding 180 major discrepancies. Findings from Rankin et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…compared outcomes listed in trial protocols with published reports . However, a large majority of studies have used the information included in clinical trial registries, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, to evaluate the discrepancies in outcomes between the trial registration and its publication . Use of the trial registration has two primary benefits for evaluation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of selective outcome reporting and trial registration practices among addiction clinical trials

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Selective outcome reporting occurs when trialists pre-specify primary and secondary outcomes during trial planning but alter the definitions in the published report. Here, we investigate selective outcome reporting in published addiction randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate whether particular funding sources are associated with an increased likelihood of selective outcome reporting. Design We conducted a cross-sectional study of published addiction clinical trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify RCTs in addiction journals from 2013 to 2017. Included studies used a randomized design to address one of the following topics: (1) drug, alcohol and tobacco addiction prevention, (2) stabilization following excessive use of a substance, (3) relapse prevention or (4) recovery maintenance.Setting Single-center, medical research institution. Participants Our sample included 162 RCTs that were prospectively registered with a clearly defined primary outcome. Measurement We extracted the following items from addiction RCTs: journal, funding source, trial registry number (if included), sample size, dates of subject enrollment, whether primary and secondary outcomes were denoted, all published outcomes, P-value for all outcomes and whether authors mentioned any deviations from the trial protocol as it related to RCT outcomes. Findings In total, 47 of 162 RCTs (29.0%) had at least one major discrepancy between the trial registry and published RCT. Overall, these 47 RCTs included 54 major discrepancies. The most common major discrepancy was demotion of a primary registered outcome (19/54, 35.2%). The majority of RCTs (132/162, 81.5%) were funded from public sources. Additionally, 166 RCTs were excluded from our sample because registration could not be confirmed. Conclusions There is evidence suggestive of selective outcome reporting in addiction randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most common major discrepancies pertained to the primary outcome.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, Howard and colleagues found that industry‐funded neurology studies were more likely to have improperly registered their RCT in favour of statistically significant results (Howard et al. ), and Varner discussed extensively about potential bias in the field of ophthalmology (Varner ). When Alasbali et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%