Clinical trial registry use in minimally invasive surgical oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: To evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Registries
Meta-Analysis
Clinical Trials
Publication Bias
Information Storage and Retrieval
PubMed
Cross-Sectional Studies
Research Personnel
Surgical Oncology

Keywords

  • Clinical Trial Registry
  • Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology
  • Publication Bias

Cite this

@article{033f564a31d94f48bf35b987ba8e04c3,
title = "Clinical trial registry use in minimally invasive surgical oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses",
abstract = "Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: To evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1{\%}) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0{\%}) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.",
keywords = "Clinical Trial Registry, Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology, Publication Bias",
author = "Kaleb Fuller and Aaron Bowers and Matt Vassar",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111207",
language = "English",
journal = "BMJ evidence-based medicine",
issn = "2515-446X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical trial registry use in minimally invasive surgical oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses

AU - Fuller, Kaleb

AU - Bowers, Aaron

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: To evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.

AB - Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: To evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.

KW - Clinical Trial Registry

KW - Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology

KW - Publication Bias

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071107456&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111207

DO - 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111207

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85071107456

JO - BMJ evidence-based medicine

JF - BMJ evidence-based medicine

SN - 2515-446X

ER -