Department of Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Department of Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Apr;25(2):1-2. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111207. Epub 2019 Aug 19.
Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: to evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.
发表偏倚可能会在系统评价中出现，因为未发表的数据被排除在外，从而导致临床决策不准确和临床结果不良。通过对临床试验注册库（CTR）进行检索，研究人员可以创建更准确的系统评价，并降低发表偏倚的风险。本研究的目的是：评估微创外科肿瘤学（MISO）文献中系统评价和荟萃分析中 CTR 的使用情况；对 ClinicalTrials.gov 进行检索，以确定是否存在可用于研究的合格试验。这是一项对从 PubMed 检索到的 197 篇系统评价和荟萃分析的横断面研究。在纳入的 137 项研究中，有 18 项（13.1%）报告了对 CTR 的检索。我们对 ClinicalTrials.gov 的检索结果显示，在 25 项随机选择的未进行试验注册库检索的系统评价中，有 16 项（64.0%）将确定额外的数据来源。尽管合格的试验可以免费获得，但 MISO 的系统评价和荟萃分析在其数据收集过程中并未经常使用 CTR。
