对观察性研究注册的范围审查发现注册政策不充分,注册增加,争论趋向于支持注册。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111686
Daniel Malmsiø , Simon Norlén , Cecilie Jespersen , Victoria Emilie Neesgaard , Zexing Song , An-Wen Chan , Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
{"title":"对观察性研究注册的范围审查发现注册政策不充分,注册增加,争论趋向于支持注册。","authors":"Daniel Malmsiø ,&nbsp;Simon Norlén ,&nbsp;Cecilie Jespersen ,&nbsp;Victoria Emilie Neesgaard ,&nbsp;Zexing Song ,&nbsp;An-Wen Chan ,&nbsp;Asbjørn Hróbjartsson","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to examine a) the policies of national and international clinical trial registries regarding observational studies; b) the time trends of observational study registration; and c) the published arguments for and against observational study registration.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>Scoping review of registry practices and published arguments. We searched the websites and databases of all 19 members of the World Health Organization's Registry Network to identify policies relating to observational studies and the number of observational studies registered annually from the beginning of the registries to 2022. Regarding documents with arguments, we searched Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and top medical and epidemiological journals from 2009 to 2023. We classified arguments as “main” based on the number (<em>n</em> ≥ 3) of documents they occurred in.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 19 registries, 15 allowed observational study registration, of which seven (35%) had an explicit policy regarding what to register and two (11%) about when to register. The annual number of observational study registrations increased over time in all registries; for example, ClinicalTrials.gov increased from 313 in 1999 to 9775 in 2022. Fifty documents provided arguments concerning observational study registration: 31 argued for, 18 against, and one was neutral. Since 2012, 19 out of 25 documents argued for. We classified nine arguments as main: five for and four against. The two most prevalent arguments for were the prevention of selective reporting of outcomes (<em>n</em> = 16) and publication bias (<em>n</em> = 12), and against were that it will hinder exploration of new ideas (<em>n</em> = 17) and it will waste resources (<em>n</em> = 6).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Few registries have policies regarding observational studies; an increasing number of observational studies were registered; there was a lively debate on the merits of registration of observational studies, which, since 2012, seems to converge toward proregistration.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"180 ","pages":"Article 111686"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping review of registration of observational studies finds inadequate registration policies, increased registration, and a debate converging toward proregistration\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Malmsiø ,&nbsp;Simon Norlén ,&nbsp;Cecilie Jespersen ,&nbsp;Victoria Emilie Neesgaard ,&nbsp;Zexing Song ,&nbsp;An-Wen Chan ,&nbsp;Asbjørn Hróbjartsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to examine a) the policies of national and international clinical trial registries regarding observational studies; b) the time trends of observational study registration; and c) the published arguments for and against observational study registration.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>Scoping review of registry practices and published arguments. We searched the websites and databases of all 19 members of the World Health Organization's Registry Network to identify policies relating to observational studies and the number of observational studies registered annually from the beginning of the registries to 2022. Regarding documents with arguments, we searched Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and top medical and epidemiological journals from 2009 to 2023. We classified arguments as “main” based on the number (<em>n</em> ≥ 3) of documents they occurred in.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 19 registries, 15 allowed observational study registration, of which seven (35%) had an explicit policy regarding what to register and two (11%) about when to register. The annual number of observational study registrations increased over time in all registries; for example, ClinicalTrials.gov increased from 313 in 1999 to 9775 in 2022. Fifty documents provided arguments concerning observational study registration: 31 argued for, 18 against, and one was neutral. Since 2012, 19 out of 25 documents argued for. We classified nine arguments as main: five for and four against. The two most prevalent arguments for were the prevention of selective reporting of outcomes (<em>n</em> = 16) and publication bias (<em>n</em> = 12), and against were that it will hinder exploration of new ideas (<em>n</em> = 17) and it will waste resources (<em>n</em> = 6).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Few registries have policies regarding observational studies; an increasing number of observational studies were registered; there was a lively debate on the merits of registration of observational studies, which, since 2012, seems to converge toward proregistration.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"180 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111686\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000198\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000198","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们的目的是检查a)国家和国际临床试验注册中心关于观察性研究的政策;B)观察性研究登记的时间趋势;C)发表的支持和反对观察性研究注册的观点。研究设计和设置:对注册实践和已发表的论点进行范围审查。我们检索了世界卫生组织注册网络所有19个成员的网站和数据库,以确定与观察性研究相关的政策以及从注册开始到2022年每年注册的观察性研究的数量。对于有争议的文献,我们检索了Medline, Embase,谷歌Scholar和2009 - 2023年的顶级医学和流行病学期刊。我们根据它们出现在文档中的数量(n≥3)将参数分类为“主要”。结果:在19个注册中心中,15个允许观察性研究注册,其中7个(35%)有关于注册内容的明确政策,2个(11%)有关于何时注册的明确政策。观察性研究注册的年度数量随着时间的推移而增加,例如,ClinicalTrials.gov从1999年的313个增加到2022年的9775个。50份文献提供了关于观察性研究注册的论证:31份支持,18份反对,1份中立。自2012年以来,25份文件中有19份支持。我们把九个论点分为主要论点:五个赞成,四个反对。两个最普遍的论点是防止选择性报告结果(n=16)和发表偏倚(n=12),反对的是它会阻碍新思想的探索(n=17),它会浪费资源(n=6)。结论:很少有注册中心有关于观察性研究的政策;越来越多的观察性研究被登记;关于观察性研究注册的优点,有一场激烈的辩论,自2012年以来,似乎倾向于支持注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scoping review of registration of observational studies finds inadequate registration policies, increased registration, and a debate converging toward proregistration

Objectives

We aimed to examine a) the policies of national and international clinical trial registries regarding observational studies; b) the time trends of observational study registration; and c) the published arguments for and against observational study registration.

Study Design and Setting

Scoping review of registry practices and published arguments. We searched the websites and databases of all 19 members of the World Health Organization's Registry Network to identify policies relating to observational studies and the number of observational studies registered annually from the beginning of the registries to 2022. Regarding documents with arguments, we searched Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and top medical and epidemiological journals from 2009 to 2023. We classified arguments as “main” based on the number (n ≥ 3) of documents they occurred in.

Results

Of 19 registries, 15 allowed observational study registration, of which seven (35%) had an explicit policy regarding what to register and two (11%) about when to register. The annual number of observational study registrations increased over time in all registries; for example, ClinicalTrials.gov increased from 313 in 1999 to 9775 in 2022. Fifty documents provided arguments concerning observational study registration: 31 argued for, 18 against, and one was neutral. Since 2012, 19 out of 25 documents argued for. We classified nine arguments as main: five for and four against. The two most prevalent arguments for were the prevention of selective reporting of outcomes (n = 16) and publication bias (n = 12), and against were that it will hinder exploration of new ideas (n = 17) and it will waste resources (n = 6).

Conclusion

Few registries have policies regarding observational studies; an increasing number of observational studies were registered; there was a lively debate on the merits of registration of observational studies, which, since 2012, seems to converge toward proregistration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
Drug approvals in crowded drug classes potentially reflect efficacy overestimates and false positivity: A portfolio analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitor trials Evaluating empirical calibration of P values under unmeasured confounding bias: a simulation study and real-world application Prioritizing topics for a clinical practice guideline on SATB2-associated syndrome: methodological rigor vs clinical usability STrategies for developing REseArch Methods guidance (STREAM): Protocol Existing research guidelines for inclusive trials methodology. Working toward the integration of qualitative research, equity, diversity, and inclusion and trials methodology: a focused mapping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1