Frequency of Use of Clinical Trials Registries in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Primary Care Journals

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the use of clinical trials registries in published primary care systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care medicine that do not report searching for unpublished data may be prone to publication bias. This source of bias occurs when systematic review evidence is based solely on a published body of literature and does not account for studies where results failed to achieve statistical significance and were therefore less likely to be published. One method to address publication bias is to perform a comprehensive search that includes the use of clinical trials registry searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the top 10 primary care journals over the past 8 years.
Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were retrieved from the top 10 primary care medicine journals published between January 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2015 using a highly sensitive search string designed in collaboration with a medical librarian on staff at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences. We performed a meta-epidemiological study to evaluate the frequency of clinical trials registry searches reported in these systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to evaluate these searches over time.
Results: A total of 205 articles retrieved from PubMed were included for analysis. We found that of the 205 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, only 8.3% (17/205) searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.
Conclusions: A large portion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care literature do not search clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Omission of unpublished data from analysis may lead to publication bias and reduced validity of the true effect sizes of interventions.
Original languageAmerican English
JournalOklahoma State Medical Proceedings
Volume1
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Registries
Meta-Analysis
Primary Health Care
Clinical Trials
Publication Bias
Medicine
Librarians
PubMed
Epidemiologic Studies
Health

Cite this

@article{6ed9bda7e30247cf8242e6b0b31d1a1b,
title = "Frequency of Use of Clinical Trials Registries in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Primary Care Journals",
abstract = "AbstractObjective: To evaluate the use of clinical trials registries in published primary care systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care medicine that do not report searching for unpublished data may be prone to publication bias. This source of bias occurs when systematic review evidence is based solely on a published body of literature and does not account for studies where results failed to achieve statistical significance and were therefore less likely to be published. One method to address publication bias is to perform a comprehensive search that includes the use of clinical trials registry searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the top 10 primary care journals over the past 8 years.Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were retrieved from the top 10 primary care medicine journals published between January 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2015 using a highly sensitive search string designed in collaboration with a medical librarian on staff at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences. We performed a meta-epidemiological study to evaluate the frequency of clinical trials registry searches reported in these systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to evaluate these searches over time.Results: A total of 205 articles retrieved from PubMed were included for analysis. We found that of the 205 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, only 8.3{\%} (17/205) searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.Conclusions: A large portion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care literature do not search clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Omission of unpublished data from analysis may lead to publication bias and reduced validity of the true effect sizes of interventions.",
author = "Lora Cotton and Christopher Thurman and Matt Vassar",
year = "2017",
language = "American English",
volume = "1",
journal = "Oklahoma State Medical Proceedings",
issn = "2475-8914",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Frequency of Use of Clinical Trials Registries in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Primary Care Journals

AU - Cotton, Lora

AU - Thurman, Christopher

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - AbstractObjective: To evaluate the use of clinical trials registries in published primary care systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care medicine that do not report searching for unpublished data may be prone to publication bias. This source of bias occurs when systematic review evidence is based solely on a published body of literature and does not account for studies where results failed to achieve statistical significance and were therefore less likely to be published. One method to address publication bias is to perform a comprehensive search that includes the use of clinical trials registry searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the top 10 primary care journals over the past 8 years.Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were retrieved from the top 10 primary care medicine journals published between January 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2015 using a highly sensitive search string designed in collaboration with a medical librarian on staff at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences. We performed a meta-epidemiological study to evaluate the frequency of clinical trials registry searches reported in these systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to evaluate these searches over time.Results: A total of 205 articles retrieved from PubMed were included for analysis. We found that of the 205 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, only 8.3% (17/205) searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.Conclusions: A large portion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care literature do not search clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Omission of unpublished data from analysis may lead to publication bias and reduced validity of the true effect sizes of interventions.

AB - AbstractObjective: To evaluate the use of clinical trials registries in published primary care systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care medicine that do not report searching for unpublished data may be prone to publication bias. This source of bias occurs when systematic review evidence is based solely on a published body of literature and does not account for studies where results failed to achieve statistical significance and were therefore less likely to be published. One method to address publication bias is to perform a comprehensive search that includes the use of clinical trials registry searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the top 10 primary care journals over the past 8 years.Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were retrieved from the top 10 primary care medicine journals published between January 1st, 2008 and December 31st, 2015 using a highly sensitive search string designed in collaboration with a medical librarian on staff at the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences. We performed a meta-epidemiological study to evaluate the frequency of clinical trials registry searches reported in these systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to evaluate these searches over time.Results: A total of 205 articles retrieved from PubMed were included for analysis. We found that of the 205 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, only 8.3% (17/205) searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.Conclusions: A large portion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in primary care literature do not search clinical trials registries for unpublished data. Omission of unpublished data from analysis may lead to publication bias and reduced validity of the true effect sizes of interventions.

M3 - Article

VL - 1

JO - Oklahoma State Medical Proceedings

JF - Oklahoma State Medical Proceedings

SN - 2475-8914

IS - 1

ER -