Clinical trial registration was not an indicator for low risk of bias

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Farquhar, Cynthia en
dc.contributor.author Showell, Marian en
dc.contributor.author Showell, EAE en
dc.contributor.author Beetham, P en
dc.contributor.author Baak, N en
dc.contributor.author Mourad, S en
dc.contributor.author Jordan-Cole, Vanessa en
dc.date.accessioned 2017-08-04T02:38:50Z en
dc.date.available 2016-11-18 en
dc.date.issued 2017-04 en
dc.identifier.citation Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 84:47-53 Apr 2017 en
dc.identifier.issn 0895-4356 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/34808 en
dc.description.abstract To determine the prevalence of registered trials and to evaluate the risk of bias between registered and unregistered clinical trials.The Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility Group's specialized register was searched on November 5, 2015, for randomized controlled trials published from 2010 to 2014. Studies were selected if they had randomized women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text and written in English. Two reviewers then independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors.Of 693 eligible randomized controlled trials, only 44% were found to be registered. Unregistered clinical trials had smaller sample sizes than registered trials (P < 0.001). A random subsample of 125 registered and 125 unregistered trials was assessed for risk of bias using five of the Cochrane Risk of Bias "domains." Registered and unregistered trials differed in their risk of bias for random sequence generation (P = 0.001), allocation concealment (P = 0.003), and selective reporting (P < 0.001) but not blinding or incomplete outcome data (P > 0.05) domains. Only 54 (43.2%) of the 125 registered trials were registered prospectively. This study has the following limitations. Only English language trials were included in this review. We were unable to obtain protocols for the unregistered trials and therefore were unable to assess the risk of bias in the selective reporting domain.All available trials should be included in systematic reviews and assessed for risk of bias as there are both registered trials with high risk of bias and unregistered trials with low risk of bias and by excluding unregistered trials more than half of the available evidence will be lost. en
dc.description.uri https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28088595 en
dc.format.medium Print-Electronic en
dc.language English en
dc.publisher Elsevier en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Journal of Clinical Epidemiology en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Details obtained from http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/0895-4356/ https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/sharing en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.title Clinical trial registration was not an indicator for low risk of bias en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.011 en
pubs.begin-page 47 en
pubs.volume 84 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: Elsevier en
dc.identifier.pmid 28088595 en
pubs.author-url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435616307338 en
pubs.end-page 53 en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Article en
pubs.elements-id 606821 en
pubs.org-id Medical and Health Sciences en
pubs.org-id School of Medicine en
pubs.org-id Obstetrics and Gynaecology en
dc.identifier.eissn 1878-5921 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2017-08-04 en
pubs.online-publication-date 2017-01-11 en
pubs.dimensions-id 28088595 en


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics