随机对照试验中方案发表率及文献、注册中心和方案的比较。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1186/s12874-025-02471-y
Sylvain Mathieu, Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois, Laurent Renard Triché, Emmanuel Coudeyre, De Chazeron Ingrid, Finotto Thomas, Catherine Laporte, Xavier Moisset, Ludovic Samalin, Guillaume Villatte, Bruno Pereira
{"title":"随机对照试验中方案发表率及文献、注册中心和方案的比较。","authors":"Sylvain Mathieu, Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois, Laurent Renard Triché, Emmanuel Coudeyre, De Chazeron Ingrid, Finotto Thomas, Catherine Laporte, Xavier Moisset, Ludovic Samalin, Guillaume Villatte, Bruno Pereira","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02471-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing transparency in clinical research is crucial to avoid misleading conclusions. Registering clinical trials prior to participant enrolment is mandatory, and the publication of trial protocols could further enhance transparency. However, the impact of protocol publication on primary outcomes (PO) and sample sizes (SS) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the rates of trial protocol publication and registration for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the consistency of published and registered PO and SS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed<sup>®</sup> for RCT reports indexed in May and June 2023 across various medical specialties, focusing on general and high-impact factor journals. Data were extracted regarding trial registration, protocol publication, and comparisons were made between PO and SS in articles, registries, and published protocols.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1119 references, 589 (52.6%) were RCTs. The corresponding protocol was published for 146 RCTs (24.8%) including 40 over 140 (28.6%) (6 without end date available) after the trial had ended. Sixty-two (42.4%) protocols were published before the trial conclusion, with no significant differences between PO and SS in published protocols and their corresponding articles. Five hundred and twenty-eight (89.6%) RCTs were registered, 225 over 510 (44%) were registered before the study start with no differences in PO and SS between article and registry. Articles published in generalist or high impact factor journals were associated with higher frequencies of published protocols and trial registration and a lower frequency of difference in PO and SS between articles, registries, and published protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While publishing trial protocols may enhance transparency in peer-review process, the initial registered protocol alone appears sufficient for ensuring consistency in primary outcomes and sample sizes. Protocol publication does not seem to provide additional significant benefits in terms of outcome reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs.\",\"authors\":\"Sylvain Mathieu, Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois, Laurent Renard Triché, Emmanuel Coudeyre, De Chazeron Ingrid, Finotto Thomas, Catherine Laporte, Xavier Moisset, Ludovic Samalin, Guillaume Villatte, Bruno Pereira\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-025-02471-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing transparency in clinical research is crucial to avoid misleading conclusions. Registering clinical trials prior to participant enrolment is mandatory, and the publication of trial protocols could further enhance transparency. However, the impact of protocol publication on primary outcomes (PO) and sample sizes (SS) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the rates of trial protocol publication and registration for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the consistency of published and registered PO and SS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed<sup>®</sup> for RCT reports indexed in May and June 2023 across various medical specialties, focusing on general and high-impact factor journals. Data were extracted regarding trial registration, protocol publication, and comparisons were made between PO and SS in articles, registries, and published protocols.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1119 references, 589 (52.6%) were RCTs. The corresponding protocol was published for 146 RCTs (24.8%) including 40 over 140 (28.6%) (6 without end date available) after the trial had ended. Sixty-two (42.4%) protocols were published before the trial conclusion, with no significant differences between PO and SS in published protocols and their corresponding articles. Five hundred and twenty-eight (89.6%) RCTs were registered, 225 over 510 (44%) were registered before the study start with no differences in PO and SS between article and registry. Articles published in generalist or high impact factor journals were associated with higher frequencies of published protocols and trial registration and a lower frequency of difference in PO and SS between articles, registries, and published protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While publishing trial protocols may enhance transparency in peer-review process, the initial registered protocol alone appears sufficient for ensuring consistency in primary outcomes and sample sizes. Protocol publication does not seem to provide additional significant benefits in terms of outcome reporting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786558/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02471-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02471-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:提高临床研究的透明度对于避免误导性结论至关重要。在参与者入组前注册临床试验是强制性的,公布试验方案可以进一步提高透明度。然而,方案发表对主要结局(PO)和样本量(SS)的影响尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定随机对照试验(RCT)样本的试验方案发表率和注册率,并比较已发表和注册的PO和ss的一致性。方法:通过PubMed®在MEDLINE上检索2023年5月和6月各医学专业的RCT报告,重点是普通和高影响因子期刊。提取有关试验注册、方案发表的数据,并在文章、注册表和已发表的方案中比较PO和SS。结果:1119篇文献中,589篇(52.6%)为随机对照试验。146项rct(24.8%)在试验结束后发表了相应的方案,其中40项超过140项(28.6%)(6项无结束日期)。在试验结束前发表了62份(42.4%)方案,PO和SS在已发表的方案及其对应的文章中没有显著差异。528个(89.6%)rct被登记,225个超过510个(44%)rct在研究开始前被登记,文章和登记之间的PO和SS没有差异。发表在通才或高影响因子期刊上的文章与发表的方案和试验注册的频率较高有关,而文章、注册和发表的方案之间PO和SS的差异频率较低。结论:虽然公布试验方案可以提高同行评议过程的透明度,但仅初始注册方案似乎足以确保主要结果和样本量的一致性。在结果报告方面,方案公布似乎没有提供额外的显著好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs.

Background: Increasing transparency in clinical research is crucial to avoid misleading conclusions. Registering clinical trials prior to participant enrolment is mandatory, and the publication of trial protocols could further enhance transparency. However, the impact of protocol publication on primary outcomes (PO) and sample sizes (SS) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the rates of trial protocol publication and registration for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the consistency of published and registered PO and SS.

Methods: A search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed® for RCT reports indexed in May and June 2023 across various medical specialties, focusing on general and high-impact factor journals. Data were extracted regarding trial registration, protocol publication, and comparisons were made between PO and SS in articles, registries, and published protocols.

Results: Out of 1119 references, 589 (52.6%) were RCTs. The corresponding protocol was published for 146 RCTs (24.8%) including 40 over 140 (28.6%) (6 without end date available) after the trial had ended. Sixty-two (42.4%) protocols were published before the trial conclusion, with no significant differences between PO and SS in published protocols and their corresponding articles. Five hundred and twenty-eight (89.6%) RCTs were registered, 225 over 510 (44%) were registered before the study start with no differences in PO and SS between article and registry. Articles published in generalist or high impact factor journals were associated with higher frequencies of published protocols and trial registration and a lower frequency of difference in PO and SS between articles, registries, and published protocols.

Conclusions: While publishing trial protocols may enhance transparency in peer-review process, the initial registered protocol alone appears sufficient for ensuring consistency in primary outcomes and sample sizes. Protocol publication does not seem to provide additional significant benefits in terms of outcome reporting.

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
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
When patients' voices aren't heard: estimands and statistical methods for handling missing patient-reported outcomes in oncology studies. Estimating causal effects of rare treatments on binary outcomes: addressing sample size requirements and bias correction. An evaluation of variable selection methods in competing risks with one rare event: a simulation study. Comparison of methods to handle missing values in a binary index test in a diagnostic accuracy study - a simulation study. A general sample size framework for developing or updating a predictive algorithm: with application to clinical prediction models.
×
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