Association of the FDA Amendment Act with trial registration, publication, and outcome reporting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting has the potential to bias the medical literature. The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) mandated clinical trial registration and outcome reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, a publicly accessible trial registry.Methods
Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all efficacy trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes between 2005 and 2014, before and after the FDAAA. For published trials, we compared the published interpretation of the findings (positive, equivocal, or negative) with the FDA reviewer's interpretation.Results
Between 2005 and 2014, the FDA approved 30 drugs for 32 indications of cardiovascular disease (n?=?17) and diabetes (n?=?15) on the basis of 183 trials (median per indication 5.7 (IQR, 3-8)). Compared with pre FDAAA, post-FDAAA studies were more likely to be registered (78 of 78 (100%) vs 73 of 105 (70%); p?ConclusionsFDAAA was associated with increased registration, publication, and FDA-concordant outcome reporting for trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
SUBMITTER: Phillips AT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5516301 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Association of the FDA Amendment Act with trial registration, publication, and outcome reporting.
Phillips Adam T AT Desai Nihar R NR Krumholz Harlan M HM Zou Constance X CX Miller Jennifer E JE Ross Joseph S JS
Trials 20170718 1
<h4>Background</h4>Selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting has the potential to bias the medical literature. The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) mandated clinical trial registration and outcome reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, a publicly accessible trial registry.<h4>Methods</h4>Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all efficacy trial ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo address the bias occurring in the medical literature associated with selective outcome reporting, in 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) introduced mandatory trial registration guidelines and member journals required prospective registration of trials prior to patient enrolment as a condition of publication. No research has examined whether these guidelines are impacting psychiatry publications. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which articles published in psychiatry journals adhering to ICMJE guidelines were correctly prospectively registered, whether there was evidence of selective outcome reporting and changes to participant numbers, and whether there was a relationship between registration status and source of funding.Materials and methodsAny clinical trial (as defined by ICMJE) published between 1 January 2009 and 31 July 2013 in the top five psychiatry journals adhering to ICMJE guidelines (The American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry/JAMA Psychiatry, Biological Psychiatry, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry) and conducted after July 2005 (or 2007 for two journals) was included. For each identified trial, where possible we extracted trial registration information, changes to POMs between publication and registry to assess selective outcome reporting, changes to participant numbers, and funding type.ResultsOut of 3305 articles, 181 studies were identified as clinical trials requiring registration: 21 (11.6%) were deemed unregistered, 61 (33.7%) were retrospectively registered, 37 (20.4%) had unclear POMs either in the article or the registry and 2 (1.1%) were registered in an inaccessible trial registry. Only 60 (33.1%) studies were prospectively registered with clearly defined POMs; 17 of these 60 (28.3%) showed evidence of selective outcome reporting and 16 (26.7%) demonstrated a change in participant numbers of 20% or more; only 26 (14.4%) of the 181 the trials were prospectively registered and did not alter their POMs or the time frames at which they were measured. Prospective registration with no changes in POMs occurred more frequently with pharmaceutical funding.DiscussionAlthough standards are in place to improve prospective registration and transparency in clinical trials, less than 15% of psychiatry trials were prospectively registered with no changes in POMs. Most trials were either not prospectively registered, changed POMs or the timeframes at some point after registration or changed participant numbers. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to further efforts to highlight the value of prospective trial registration.
| S-EPMC4546113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.ResultsThe FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p <?0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p <?0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR]?=?1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.17-1.99; p?=?0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR?=?2.47; CI?=?1.57-3.73; p?<?0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR?=?1; CI?=?1-1, p?=?NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR?=?1.20; CI?=?0.84-1.72; p?=?0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR?=?1.52; CI?=?1.16-1.99; p?=?0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR?=?2.06, CI?=?1.17-3.61, p?=?0.01).ConclusionsThe enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.
| S-EPMC6199729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePrimary outcome change could threaten the validity of a clinical trial; however, evidence about the consequences on the reported intervention effect size is unclear.ObjectivesTo examine the status of randomized clinical trials whose primary outcome changed between trial registration and publication and to quantify the association of this change with the reported intervention effect size.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study on the primary report of randomized clinical trials with clear prospectively registered primary outcomes, PubMed and Embase were searched for articles published between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015. The search was conducted in January 2016, identifying randomized clinical trials and the combination of keywords and text words related to registry.Main outcomes and measuresBased on the developed approach, trials were classified as having primary outcome change when there was a major discrepancy between the registered and published primary outcomes. Intervention effect was estimated or recalculated using the odds ratio (OR) for each comparison. Each component OR is structured so that an OR is less than 1 if the intervention group has a more favorable result than the control group. The ratio of ORs (ROR), which is the summary OR for trials with primary outcome change divided by those without, and its 95% CI were calculated, with a value less than 1 indicating a larger reported intervention effect size in trials with primary outcome change than those without.ResultsAmong 29 749 searched articles (28 810 MEDLINE and 939 Embase), 1488 articles were randomly selected for review. Of 389 trials with clear primary outcomes prospectively described in the registry (416 outcomes reported), 33.4% (130 of 389) of trials had at least 1 primary outcome change. Most (66 of 130) of the changes were either not reporting or omitting the primary outcome. In total, 338 trials (365 outcomes and 487 comparisons) were available for quantitative analysis on the reported intervention effect size bias assessment. Compared with those without primary outcome change, trials with primary outcome change showed a 16% (pooled ROR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96) larger reported intervention effect size. The result persisted after adjustment for potential confounders (ROR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93) and other sensitivity and subgroup analyses.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study suggest that inconsistencies between registered and published primary outcomes of clinical trials are common, and trials with primary outcome change are likely to have a larger intervention effect than those without.
| S-EPMC6646984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mandatory prospective trial registration was introduced in 2005 to reduce publication bias and selective outcome reporting. In this study, we measured the proportion of prospective trial registration in randomized controlled trials in the anesthesia literature after this introduction, discrepancies between these trial protocols and subsequent publications, the association between being prospectively registered and reporting positive or negative results, and between being prospectively registered and achieving publication. We reviewed all abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meetings between 2010-2016 and included randomized controlled trials in humans. The abstract conclusions were scored as positive or negative according to predetermined definitions. We conducted a systematic search for trial registration and subsequent publication. Of the 9789 abstracts reviewed, 1070 abstracts were included. 222 (21%) of these abstracts had undergone prospective trial registration. 168/222 (76%) had a corresponding journal publication. 81(48%) had a major discrepancy between registration and publication. 149 (67%) of the abstracts with registration had positive outcomes compared with 616 (73%) of those without (Odds Ratio 0.77; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.06; P = 0.105). Abstracts that had been registered were more likely to proceed to publication than those that had not (Odds Ratio 3.82; 95% CI 2.73 to 5.35; P < 0.001). The proportion of randomized controlled trials being prospectively registered in anesthesia remains low. Discrepancies between registry entries and corresponding journal publications are common. There was no association between prospective trial registration and subsequent positive outcomes. There was a strong association between prospective trial registration and the likelihood of progression to journal publication.
| S-EPMC9255735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinicalTrials.gov is a publicly accessible, Internet-based registry of clinical trials managed by the US National Library of Medicine that has the potential to address selective trial publication. Our objectives were to examine completeness of registration within ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the extent and correlates of selective publication.Methods and findingsWe examined reporting of registration information among a cross-section of trials that had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov after December 31, 1999 and updated as having been completed by June 8, 2007, excluding phase I trials. We then determined publication status among a random 10% subsample by searching MEDLINE using a systematic protocol, after excluding trials completed after December 31, 2005 to allow at least 2 y for publication following completion. Among the full sample of completed trials (n = 7,515), nearly 100% reported all data elements mandated by ClinicalTrials.gov, such as intervention and sponsorship. Optional data element reporting varied, with 53% reporting trial end date, 66% reporting primary outcome, and 87% reporting trial start date. Among the 10% subsample, less than half (311 of 677, 46%) of trials were published, among which 96 (31%) provided a citation within ClinicalTrials.gov of a publication describing trial results. Trials primarily sponsored by industry (40%, 144 of 357) were less likely to be published when compared with nonindustry/nongovernment sponsored trials (56%, 110 of 198; p<0.001), but there was no significant difference when compared with government sponsored trials (47%, 57 of 122; p = 0.22). Among trials that reported an end date, 75 of 123 (61%) completed prior to 2004, 50 of 96 (52%) completed during 2004, and 62 of 149 (42%) completed during 2005 were published (p = 0.006).ConclusionsReporting of optional data elements varied and publication rates among completed trials registered within ClinicalTrials.gov were low. Without greater attention to reporting of all data elements, the potential for ClinicalTrials.gov to address selective publication of clinical trials will be limited. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
| S-EPMC2728480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:To research 1) how many acupuncture clinical trials are registered with the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) and what patterns they demonstrate, 2) publication of the articles of acupuncture clinical trials which were registered with ICTRP. Methods:The search strategy using the ICTRP: Intervention: acupuncture; Recruitment status: All; Date of registration; from 1 Jan 1990 to 31 Dec 2018. We searched the indexed articles in PubMed using trial IDs on 25 Feb 2019. When the paper was published, we indicated the number of weeks from the date of registration with ICTRP to the date of publication in order to define time till the publication. We divided the whole period we analyzed into 6 periods of every 3 years and measured the proportion of publication and the time from the date of registration of each trial till its publication in each period by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results:Forty-three countries/areas conducted at least one acupuncture clinical trial. The total number of registrations was 1758. China, the USA, and the Republic of Korea accounted for 61% of those registrations. The proportion of publication was 178/1758 10% for the fully published papers and 141/1758 8% for the protocol papers. Conclusions:The substantial increase of registrations by China, the Republic of Korea, Iran, Brazil, Japan was observed which may be attributed to improved awareness of the CONSORT statement. However, the fully published papers rate is low at 10%. The publication of results of acupuncture clinical trials should also be rigorously mandated.
| S-EPMC7021548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is significant racial disparity in prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. Racial diversity and compliance with FDA race reporting guidelines in PCa drug registration trials are unknown. We analyzed racial diversity and race reporting in drug licensing trials for PCa.MethodsNew drug authorizations for PCa from 2006 to 2020 were identified. The corresponding licensing trial publications were analyzed to check compliance with current FDA recommendations for race reporting. If race was unreported, the clinical trial report was analyzed to determine participant recruitment by race and lead the recruiting country.ResultsDuring the study period, 17 new drug registrations for the management of PCa involving ten unique drugs were identified. In total, 18,455 participants were included in FDA registration trials, of which 76.3% were white or Caucasian, 7.9% Asian, 2.9% Black or African American, 0.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 1.8% other or multiple races and 10.5% unknown. 53% of trials reported race in the licensing publication, however of this only 55% met current FDA recommendations. When the race was unreported in the licensing publication, 88% of studies had further information in the clinical study report.ConclusionWe found a significant under-representation of non-white participants in FDA drug registration trials for PCa. Race reporting in licensing publication is inconsistent and both FDA and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines are not being universally followed. Given the disproportionality of the disease burden of PCa, recruitment of Black and other minority participants to trials should be a research priority.
| S-EPMC8616766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention.We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.
| S-EPMC2518111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Trial registration is widely endorsed as it is considered not only to enhance transparency and quality of reporting but also to help safeguard against outcome reporting bias and probably spin, known as specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results thus mislead readers. We planned to investigate the current registration status of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture, outcome reporting bias in the prospectively registered trials, and the association between trial registration and presence of spin and methodological factors in acupuncture RCTs. METHODS:Acupuncture RCTs published in English in recent 5 years (January 2013 to December 2017) were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Trial registration records identified in the publications and trial registries were classified into prospectively registered, retrospectively registered, or unregistered. Primary outcomes were identified and the direction of the results was judged as statistically significant (positive) or statistically nonsignificant (negative). We compared registered and published primary outcomes to assess outcome reporting bias and assessed whether discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes. Frequency and strategies of spin in published reports with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes were then identified. We also analyzed whether the trial registration status was associated with spin and quality of methodological factors. RESULTS:Of the 322 included RCTs, 41.9% (n = 135) were prospectively registered. Among 64 studies that were prospectively registered and specified primary outcomes, 25 trials had the discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes and 60% of them (15 trials) favored the statistically significant findings. Among 169 studies that specified primary outcomes, trial registration status was not associated with the direction of results, i.e., statistically significant or not. Spin was identified in 56.4% out of 78 studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and claiming efficacy with no consideration of statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes was the most common strategy for spin. Trial registration status was not statistically different between studies with and without spin. CONCLUSION:While trial registration seemed to have improved over time, primary outcomes in registered records and publications were often inconsistent, tending to favor statistically significant findings and spin was common in studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes. Journal editors and researchers in this field should be alerted to still prevalent reporting bias and spin.
| S-EPMC6776391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConfidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.MethodsEligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013-2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.ResultsOf 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).ConclusionsThe quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.
| S-EPMC4651548 | biostudies-literature