Raghav Kanwal Pratap Singh, Mahajan Sminil, Yao James C, Hobbs Brian P, Berry Donald A, Pentz Rebecca D, Tam Alda, Hong Waun K, Ellis Lee M, Abbruzzese James, Overman Michael J
Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, Sminil Mahajan, James C. Yao, Brian P. Hobbs, Donald A. Berry, Alda Tam, Waun K. Hong, Lee M. Ellis, and Michael J. Overman, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Rebecca D. Pentz, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; and James Abbruzzese, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC.
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 1;33(31):3583-90. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.4148. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
The decision by journals to append protocols to published reports of randomized trials was a landmark event in clinical trial reporting. However, limited information is available on how this initiative effected transparency and selective reporting of clinical trial data.
We analyzed 74 oncology-based randomized trials published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, the New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet in 2012. To ascertain integrity of reporting, we compared published reports with their respective appended protocols with regard to primary end points, nonprimary end points, unplanned end points, and unplanned analyses.
A total of 86 primary end points were reported in 74 randomized trials; nine trials had greater than one primary end point. Nine trials (12.2%) had some discrepancy between their planned and published primary end points. A total of 579 nonprimary end points (median, seven per trial) were planned, of which 373 (64.4%; median, five per trial) were reported. A significant positive correlation was found between the number of planned and nonreported nonprimary end points (Spearman r = 0.66; P < .001). Twenty-eight studies (37.8%) reported a total of 65 unplanned end points; 52 (80.0%) of which were not identified as unplanned. Thirty-one (41.9%) and 19 (25.7%) of 74 trials reported a total of 52 unplanned analyses involving primary end points and 33 unplanned analyses involving nonprimary end points, respectively. Studies reported positive unplanned end points and unplanned analyses more frequently than negative outcomes in abstracts (unplanned end points odds ratio, 6.8; P = .002; unplanned analyses odd ratio, 8.4; P = .007).
Despite public and reviewer access to protocols, selective outcome reporting persists and is a major concern in the reporting of randomized clinical trials. To foster credible evidence-based medicine, additional initiatives are needed to minimize selective reporting.
期刊决定在已发表的随机试验报告后附加试验方案是临床试验报告中的一个里程碑事件。然而,关于这一举措如何影响临床试验数据的透明度和选择性报告的信息有限。
我们分析了2012年发表在《临床肿瘤学杂志》《新英格兰医学杂志》和《柳叶刀》上的74项基于肿瘤学的随机试验。为确定报告的完整性,我们将已发表的报告与其各自附加的试验方案在主要终点、非主要终点、非计划终点和非计划分析方面进行了比较。
74项随机试验共报告了86个主要终点;9项试验有不止一个主要终点。9项试验(12.2%)的计划主要终点与发表的主要终点之间存在一些差异。共计划了579个非主要终点(中位数为每项试验7个),其中373个(64.4%;中位数为每项试验5个)被报告。计划的未报告非主要终点数量之间存在显著正相关(斯皮尔曼r = 0.66;P <.001)。28项研究(37.8%)共报告了65个非计划终点;其中52个(80.0%)未被确定为非计划终点。74项试验中的31项(41.9%)和19项(25.7%)分别共报告了52项涉及主要终点的非计划分析和33项涉及非主要终点的非计划分析。研究在摘要中报告阳性非计划终点和非计划分析比报告阴性结果更频繁(非计划终点优势比,6.8;P =.002;非计划分析优势比,8.4;P =.007)。
尽管公众和审稿人可以获取试验方案,但选择性结果报告仍然存在,并且是随机临床试验报告中的一个主要问题。为促进基于可靠证据的医学,需要采取额外举措以尽量减少选择性报告。