Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review

Autor: Cole Wayant, Matt Vassar, Linda Leduc, Chandler Hicks, Caleb Scheckel, Timothy Nissen, Mousumi Som
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2017
Předmět:
Veterinary medicine
Physiology
Alternative medicine
lcsh:Medicine
Outcome (game theory)
law.invention
Hematologic Cancers and Related Disorders
0302 clinical medicine
Randomized controlled trial
law
Medicine and Health Sciences
030212 general & internal medicine
lcsh:Science
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Multidisciplinary
Hematology
Research Assessment
Body Fluids
Blood
Reporting bias
Oncology
030220 oncology & carcinogenesis
Anatomy
Research Article
medicine.medical_specialty
Drug Research and Development
Systematic Reviews
MEDLINE
Subgroup analysis
Research and Analysis Methods
03 medical and health sciences
Statistical significance
Leukemias
medicine
Humans
Clinical Trials
Pharmacology
Health Care Policy
business.industry
lcsh:R
Health Care Policy Reports
Biology and Life Sciences
Cancers and Neoplasms
Publication bias
Randomized Controlled Trials
Health Care
Family medicine
lcsh:Q
Clinical Medicine
business
Publication Bias
Zdroj: PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE, Vol 12, Iss 6, p e0178379 (2017)
ISSN: 1932-6203
Popis: Introduction Selective reporting bias occurs when chance or selective outcome reporting rather than the intervention contributes to group differences. The prevailing concern about selective reporting bias is the possibility of results being modified towards specific conclusions. In this study, we evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in hematology journals, a group in which selective outcome reporting has not yet been explored. Methods Our primary goal was to examine discrepancies between the reported primary and secondary outcomes in registered and published RCTs concerning hematological malignancies reported in hematology journals with a high impact factor. The secondary goals were to address whether outcome reporting discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes, whether a pattern existed between the funding source and likelihood of outcome reporting bias, and whether temporal trends were present in outcome reporting bias. For trials with major outcome discrepancies, we contacted trialists to determine reasons for these discrepancies. Trials published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 in Blood; British Journal of Haematology; American Journal of Hematology; Leukemia; and Haematologica were included. Results Of 499 RCTs screened, 109 RCTs were included. Our analysis revealed 118 major discrepancies and 629 total discrepancies. Among the 118 discrepancies, 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were demoted, 47 (39.8%) primary outcomes were omitted, and 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were added. Three (2.5%) secondary outcomes were upgraded to a primary outcome. The timing of assessment for a primary outcome changed eight (6.8%) times. Thirty-one major discrepancies were published with a P-value and twenty-five (80.6%) favored statistical significance. A majority of authors whom we contacted cited a pre-planned subgroup analysis as a reason for outcome changes. Conclusion Our results suggest that outcome changes occur frequently in hematology trials. Because RCTs ultimately underpin clinical judgment and guide policy implementation, selective reporting could pose a threat to medical decision making.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: