TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the completeness of safety reporting in clinical trials of regional anesthesia interventions
T2 - a registry-publication comparison systematic review
AU - McCormick, Caitlin
AU - Waller, Danielle
AU - Elghzali, Ahmed
AU - Corwin, Logan
AU - Harris, Tag
AU - Hazlitt, Rachel
AU - Archer, Daniel
AU - Ford, Alicia I.
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2025. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Background Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications. Methods We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland–Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ2 tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0–7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule–mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends. Results Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation. Discussion In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.
AB - Background Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications. Methods We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland–Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ2 tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0–7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule–mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends. Results Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation. Discussion In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.
KW - Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
KW - ETHICS
KW - Meta-Analysis
KW - REGIONAL ANESTHESIA
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105019542008
U2 - 10.1136/rapm-2025-107055
DO - 10.1136/rapm-2025-107055
M3 - Review article
C2 - 41073071
AN - SCOPUS:105019542008
SN - 1098-7339
JO - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
JF - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
M1 - rapm-2025-107055
ER -