Clinical trials registries are underused in the pregnancy and childbirth literature: A systematic review of the top 20 journals

Vadim V. Yerokhin, Branden K. Carr, Guy Sneed, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions. Methods: We retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar's h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Results: A PubMed search retrieved 372 citations, 297 of which were deemed to be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis and were included for analysis. Twelve (4 %) of these searched at least one WHO-approved clinical trials registry or clinicaltrials.gov. Conclusion: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pregnancy and childbirth journals do not routinely report searches of clinical trials registries. Including these registries in systematic reviews may be a promising avenue to limit publication bias if registry searches locate unpublished trial data that could be used in the systematic review.

Original languageEnglish
Article number475
JournalBMC Research Notes
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 21 Oct 2016

Fingerprint

Registries
Meta-Analysis
Clinical Trials
Parturition
Pregnancy
Publication Bias
PubMed

Keywords

  • Clinical trials registries
  • Obstetrics
  • Pregnancy and childbirth
  • Publication bias
  • Systematic review

Cite this

@article{25d37fa777cf40ffad7298fc75c6d3c1,
title = "Clinical trials registries are underused in the pregnancy and childbirth literature: A systematic review of the top 20 journals",
abstract = "Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions. Methods: We retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar's h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Results: A PubMed search retrieved 372 citations, 297 of which were deemed to be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis and were included for analysis. Twelve (4 {\%}) of these searched at least one WHO-approved clinical trials registry or clinicaltrials.gov. Conclusion: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pregnancy and childbirth journals do not routinely report searches of clinical trials registries. Including these registries in systematic reviews may be a promising avenue to limit publication bias if registry searches locate unpublished trial data that could be used in the systematic review.",
keywords = "Clinical trials registries, Obstetrics, Pregnancy and childbirth, Publication bias, Systematic review",
author = "Yerokhin, {Vadim V.} and Carr, {Branden K.} and Guy Sneed and Matt Vassar",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1186/s13104-016-2280-3",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "BMC Research Notes",
issn = "1756-0500",
publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Clinical trials registries are underused in the pregnancy and childbirth literature : A systematic review of the top 20 journals. / Yerokhin, Vadim V.; Carr, Branden K.; Sneed, Guy; Vassar, Matt.

In: BMC Research Notes, Vol. 9, No. 1, 475, 21.10.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical trials registries are underused in the pregnancy and childbirth literature

T2 - A systematic review of the top 20 journals

AU - Yerokhin, Vadim V.

AU - Carr, Branden K.

AU - Sneed, Guy

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2016/10/21

Y1 - 2016/10/21

N2 - Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions. Methods: We retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar's h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Results: A PubMed search retrieved 372 citations, 297 of which were deemed to be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis and were included for analysis. Twelve (4 %) of these searched at least one WHO-approved clinical trials registry or clinicaltrials.gov. Conclusion: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pregnancy and childbirth journals do not routinely report searches of clinical trials registries. Including these registries in systematic reviews may be a promising avenue to limit publication bias if registry searches locate unpublished trial data that could be used in the systematic review.

AB - Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions. Methods: We retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar's h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Results: A PubMed search retrieved 372 citations, 297 of which were deemed to be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis and were included for analysis. Twelve (4 %) of these searched at least one WHO-approved clinical trials registry or clinicaltrials.gov. Conclusion: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pregnancy and childbirth journals do not routinely report searches of clinical trials registries. Including these registries in systematic reviews may be a promising avenue to limit publication bias if registry searches locate unpublished trial data that could be used in the systematic review.

KW - Clinical trials registries

KW - Obstetrics

KW - Pregnancy and childbirth

KW - Publication bias

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992223612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13104-016-2280-3

DO - 10.1186/s13104-016-2280-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 27769265

AN - SCOPUS:84992223612

VL - 9

JO - BMC Research Notes

JF - BMC Research Notes

SN - 1756-0500

IS - 1

M1 - 475

ER -