Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries

Philip Marcus Sinnett, Branden Carr, Gregory Cook, Halie Mucklerath, Laura Varney, Matt Weiher, Vadim Yerokhin, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We examined the use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews and metaanalyses from clinical neurology. A review of publications between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 from five neuroscience journals (Annals of Neurology, Brain, Lancet Neurology, Neurology, and The Neuroscientist) was performed to identify eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews comprising the final sample were independently appraised to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies acknowledging the use of a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data had been incorporated into the analysis. The initial search yielded 194 studies, of which 78 systematic reviews met the selection criteria. Of those, five acknowledged the use of a specific clinical trials registry: four reviewed unpublished trial data and two incorporated unpublished trial data into their results. Based on our sample of systematic reviews, there was no increase in the use of trials registries in systematic review searches over time. Few systematic reviews published in clinical neurology journals included data from relevant clinical trials registries.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0134596
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume10
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 30 Jul 2015

Fingerprint

systematic review
Neurology
Registries
clinical trials
Clinical Trials
neurophysiology
Neurosciences
Patient Selection
Publications
selection criteria
Brain
brain
sampling

Cite this

Sinnett, Philip Marcus ; Carr, Branden ; Cook, Gregory ; Mucklerath, Halie ; Varney, Laura ; Weiher, Matt ; Yerokhin, Vadim ; Vassar, Matt. / Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries. In: PLoS ONE. 2015 ; Vol. 10, No. 7.
@article{676b7b1d906243379e3adb35b3ddc506,
title = "Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries",
abstract = "We examined the use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews and metaanalyses from clinical neurology. A review of publications between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 from five neuroscience journals (Annals of Neurology, Brain, Lancet Neurology, Neurology, and The Neuroscientist) was performed to identify eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews comprising the final sample were independently appraised to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies acknowledging the use of a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data had been incorporated into the analysis. The initial search yielded 194 studies, of which 78 systematic reviews met the selection criteria. Of those, five acknowledged the use of a specific clinical trials registry: four reviewed unpublished trial data and two incorporated unpublished trial data into their results. Based on our sample of systematic reviews, there was no increase in the use of trials registries in systematic review searches over time. Few systematic reviews published in clinical neurology journals included data from relevant clinical trials registries.",
author = "Sinnett, {Philip Marcus} and Branden Carr and Gregory Cook and Halie Mucklerath and Laura Varney and Matt Weiher and Vadim Yerokhin and Matt Vassar",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0134596",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "7",

}

Sinnett, PM, Carr, B, Cook, G, Mucklerath, H, Varney, L, Weiher, M, Yerokhin, V & Vassar, M 2015, 'Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries', PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 7, e0134596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134596

Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries. / Sinnett, Philip Marcus; Carr, Branden; Cook, Gregory; Mucklerath, Halie; Varney, Laura; Weiher, Matt; Yerokhin, Vadim; Vassar, Matt.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 10, No. 7, e0134596, 30.07.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries

AU - Sinnett, Philip Marcus

AU - Carr, Branden

AU - Cook, Gregory

AU - Mucklerath, Halie

AU - Varney, Laura

AU - Weiher, Matt

AU - Yerokhin, Vadim

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2015/7/30

Y1 - 2015/7/30

N2 - We examined the use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews and metaanalyses from clinical neurology. A review of publications between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 from five neuroscience journals (Annals of Neurology, Brain, Lancet Neurology, Neurology, and The Neuroscientist) was performed to identify eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews comprising the final sample were independently appraised to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies acknowledging the use of a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data had been incorporated into the analysis. The initial search yielded 194 studies, of which 78 systematic reviews met the selection criteria. Of those, five acknowledged the use of a specific clinical trials registry: four reviewed unpublished trial data and two incorporated unpublished trial data into their results. Based on our sample of systematic reviews, there was no increase in the use of trials registries in systematic review searches over time. Few systematic reviews published in clinical neurology journals included data from relevant clinical trials registries.

AB - We examined the use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews and metaanalyses from clinical neurology. A review of publications between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 from five neuroscience journals (Annals of Neurology, Brain, Lancet Neurology, Neurology, and The Neuroscientist) was performed to identify eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews comprising the final sample were independently appraised to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies acknowledging the use of a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data had been incorporated into the analysis. The initial search yielded 194 studies, of which 78 systematic reviews met the selection criteria. Of those, five acknowledged the use of a specific clinical trials registry: four reviewed unpublished trial data and two incorporated unpublished trial data into their results. Based on our sample of systematic reviews, there was no increase in the use of trials registries in systematic review searches over time. Few systematic reviews published in clinical neurology journals included data from relevant clinical trials registries.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941966058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0134596

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0134596

M3 - Article

C2 - 26225564

AN - SCOPUS:84941966058

VL - 10

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 7

M1 - e0134596

ER -

Sinnett PM, Carr B, Cook G, Mucklerath H, Varney L, Weiher M et al. Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries. PLoS ONE. 2015 Jul 30;10(7). e0134596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134596