IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0157883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Much Participant Outcome Data Is Missing from Sight: Findings from a Cohort of Trials Submitted to a German Research Ethics Committee

Author

Listed:
  • Jamie J Kirkham
  • Kerry M Dwan
  • Anette Blümle
  • Erik von Elm
  • Paula R Williamson

Abstract

Background: Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as two threats to the validity of systematic reviews. The purpose of this research was to estimate the proportion of missing participant outcome data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) due to lack of publication of whole studies and due to outcome data missing within study publications. Methods and Findings: Data were extracted from protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) between 2000 and 2002 and associated fully published articles. The total amount of published and unpublished outcome data from all trial participants was calculated for each trial and the overall proportion of missing data from both unpublished and published trials computed. Full and partially reported outcome data was also taken into consideration. The impact of funding source on missingness was also considered at the trial level. From 308 parallel group trials in the study cohort, 167 were published and 141 were unpublished. Overall, 260,563 participants contributed to a total of 2,618,116 participant outcome data across all trials. About half (47%) of the participant outcome data from the 308 trials was reported in full but at least 81% were partially reported. Of the 19% of participant data that were missing, 4% was attributable to missing data from published trials and 15% from unpublished trials. Commercially funded trials had a higher probability of publication (relative risk 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.86, 1.67; p = 0.27) but were less likely to fully report all outcomes than non-commercially funded trials (relative risk 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.30, 1.38; p = 0.26). Conclusions: Missing participant outcome data from both published and unpublished trials is frequent. Clinical trial registration including outcome information not only identifies that clinical trials exist but the systematic examination and monitoring of trial information within a registry can help detect selective reporting of entire studies and of outcome data within studies and possibly prevent it.

Suggested Citation

  • Jamie J Kirkham & Kerry M Dwan & Anette Blümle & Erik von Elm & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "How Much Participant Outcome Data Is Missing from Sight: Findings from a Cohort of Trials Submitted to a German Research Ethics Committee," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-8, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157883
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157883
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157883&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0157883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerry Dwan & Carrol Gamble & Paula R Williamson & Jamie J Kirkham & the Reporting Bias Group, 2013. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-37, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claire Godard-Sebillotte & Mélanie Le Berre & Tibor Schuster & Miguel Trottier & Isabelle Vedel, 2019. "Impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Kellia Chiu & Quinn Grundy & Lisa Bero, 2017. "‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    3. E. Decullier & P. V. Tang & L. Huot & H. Maisonneuve, 2021. "Why an automated tracker finds poor sharing of clinical trial results for an academic sponsor: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1239-1248, February.
    4. Je-Young Lee & Minkyung Baek, 2023. "Effects of Gamification on Students’ English Language Proficiency: A Meta-Analysis on Research in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Eijgermans, D.G.M. & Fang, Y. & Jansen, D.E.M.C. & Bramer, W.M. & Raat, H. & Jansen, W., 2021. "Individual and contextual determinants of children’s and adolescents’ mental health care use: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Anette Blümle & Tobias Haag & James Balmford & Gerta Rücker & Martin Schumacher & Nadine Binder, 2020. "A multi-state model analysis of the time from ethical approval to publication of clinical research studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    7. John Copas, 2022. "Akaike Memorial Lecture 2020: Some of the challenges of statistical applications," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 74(4), pages 615-637, August.
    8. Zhou-min Yuan & Mingxin Yao, 2022. "Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6191-6207, November.
    9. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    11. Jaithri Ananthapavan & Gary Sacks & Marj Moodie & Rob Carter, 2014. "Economics of Obesity — Learning from the Past to Contribute to a Better Future," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Xueying Liu & Haoran Zhu, 2023. "Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3107-3127, May.
    13. Tinashe Dune & Jacqueline Ullman & Tania Ferfolja & Jack Thepsourinthone & Shirali Garga & Zelalem Mengesha, 2020. "Are Services Inclusive? A Review of the Experiences of Older GSD Women in Accessing Health, Social and Aged Care Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Arnaud Vaganay, 2016. "Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, September.
    15. Chuan Hong & Georgia Salanti & Sally C. Morton & Richard D. Riley & Haitao Chu & Stephen E. Kimmel & Yong Chen, 2020. "Testing small study effects in multivariate meta‐analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1240-1250, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.