Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Walker, Kate F; Stevenson, Graham; Thornton, James G (2014)
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Journal: JRSM Open
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: clinical trial, consensus development conference, randomised controlled trial, Research

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: health care economics and organizations, education
Abstract\ud OBJECTIVES:\ud To determine the consistency between information contained in the registration and publication of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\ud DESIGN:\ud An observational study of RCTs published between May 2011 and May 2012 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) comparing registry data with publication data.\ud PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS:\ud Data extracted from published RCTs in BMJ and JAMA.\ud MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:\ud Timing of trial registration in relation to completion of trial data collection and publication. Registered versus published primary and secondary outcomes, sample size.\ud RESULTS:\ud We identified 40 RCTs in BMJ and 36 in JAMA. All 36 JAMA trials and 39 (98%) BMJ trials were registered. All registered trials were registered prior to publication. Thirty-two (82%) BMJ trials recorded the date of data completion; of these, in two trials the date of trial registration postdated the registered date of data completion. There were discrepancies between primary outcomes declared in the trial registry information and in the published paper in 18 (47%) BMJ papers and seven (19%) JAMA papers. The original sample size stated in the trial registration was achieved in 24 (60%) BMJ papers and 21 (58%) JAMA papers.\ud CONCLUSIONS:\ud Compulsory registration of RCTs is meaningless if the content of registry information is not complete or if discrepancies between registration and publication are not reported. This study demonstrates that discrepancies in primary and secondary outcomes and sample size between trial registration and publication remain commonplace, giving further strength to the World Health Organisation's argument for mandatory completion of a minimum number of compulsory fields.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article