Reveiz Ludovic, Cardona Andres Felipe, Ospina Edgar Guillermo, de Agular Sylvia
Colsanitas, General Practice, Edif de Consultorios Clinica Reina, Bogota, Colombia.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):755-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.022.
A large number of trials remain difficult to locate or unpublished for systematic reviews. The objective of this article was to determine the usefulness of making e-mail contact with authors of clinical trials and literature reviews found in MEDLINE to identify unpublished or difficult to locate Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
A structured search for detecting RCTs in MEDLINE was made from January 1999 to June 2003; a questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 525 author's mails. Those RCTs obtained were sought in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, LILACS, and ongoing registers.
40 (7.6%) replies were received; 10 previously undescribed and unpublished RCTs and 21 unregistered ongoing RCTs were found. The most frequently given reasons for not publishing were: lack of time for finalizing the statistical analysis and preparing the manuscript, contractual obligations with the pharmaceutical industry, methodologic errors in designing, and editorial rejection.
Using the e-mails of authors detected by the search in electronic databases could contribute toward detecting potentially relevant ongoing or unpublished RCTs enabling rapid, straightforward, low-cost systematic review; in addition, the results of this study support the need of universal registration of all studies at their inception.
大量试验仍难以查找或未发表,无法用于系统评价。本文的目的是确定与在MEDLINE中检索到的临床试验和文献综述的作者进行电子邮件联系,以识别未发表或难以查找的随机对照试验(RCT)的有用性。
1999年1月至2003年6月在MEDLINE中进行了检测RCT的结构化检索;向525位作者邮件的随机样本发送了问卷。在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane对照试验注册库、LILACS和正在进行的注册库中查找获得的那些RCT。
收到40份(7.6%)回复;发现了10项先前未描述和未发表的RCT以及21项未注册的正在进行的RCT。未发表的最常见原因是:缺乏完成统计分析和撰写稿件的时间、与制药行业的合同义务、设计中的方法学错误以及编辑退稿。
利用在电子数据库检索中检测到的作者的电子邮件,有助于发现潜在相关的正在进行或未发表的RCT,从而能够进行快速、直接、低成本的系统评价;此外,本研究结果支持所有研究在启动时进行普遍注册的必要性。