Selective reporting bias in randomised controlled trials from two network meta-analyses: comparison of clinical trial registrations and their respective publications
Wong EK, Lachance CC, Page MJ, Watt J, Veroniki A, Straus SE, Tricco AC. Selective reporting bias in randomised controlled trials from two network meta-analyses: comparison of clinical trial registrations and their respective publications. BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 5;9(9):e031138. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031138.
Share Buttons [span][/span]
[ssba-buttons] [/sidebar] [sidebar-content]- This study aims to determine if there is a difference in the frequency of overall serious adverse events (SAEs) reported in clinical trial registrations and their respective primary publications
- This study was conducted for systematic review authors who incorporate safety data into meta-analyses and network meta-analyses
- Nearly 20% of publications with results posted in a clinical trial registry had inconsistent reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) in the primary publication
- Nearly 10% of the randomised trials with a prespecified primary outcome in the registry had a change in the primary outcome in the publication
Almetrics:
[/sidebar-content]Category : KS Projects
Date : 11 Dec 2019