IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0189309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients

Author

Listed:
  • Eliane Rohner
  • Michael Grabik
  • Thomy Tonia
  • Peter Jüni
  • Frank Pétavy
  • Francesco Pignatti
  • Julia Bohlius

Abstract

Since 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has provided access to clinical study reports (CSRs). We requested CSRs for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in cancer patients from EMA and identified RCT publications with literature searches. We assessed CSR availability and completeness, the impact of unreported and unpublished data obtained from CSRs on the effects of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients, and discrepancies between data reported in the public domain and in CSRs. We used random-effects meta-analyses to evaluate the effect of ESAs on QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An), FACT-Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-Anemia Total (FACT-An Total) stratified by data source and the impact of discrepancies on QoL, mortality, adverse events, and clinical effectiveness outcomes. We identified 94 eligible RCTs; CSRs or other study documentation were available for 17 (18%) RCTs at EMA. Median report length was 1,825 pages (range 72–14,569). Of 180 outcomes of interest reported in the EMA documentation, 127 (71%) were publicly available. For 80 of those (63%) we noted discrepancies, but these had little impact on the pooled effect estimates. Of 27 QoL outcomes reported in the CSRs, 17 (63%) were unpublished. Including six unpublished comparisons (pooled mean difference [MD] 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.93, 2.33) reduced the pooled effect of ESAs for FACT-An from MD 5.51 (95% CI 4.20, 6.82) in published data to MD 3.21 (95% CI 1.38, 5.03), which is below a clinically important difference (defined as MD ≥4). Effects were similar for FACT-F and FACT-An Total. Access to CSRs from EMA reduced reporting biases for QoL outcomes. However, EMA received documentation for a fraction of all RCTs on effects of ESAs in cancer patients. Additional efforts by other agencies and institutions are needed to make CSRs universally available for all RCTs.

Suggested Citation

  • Eliane Rohner & Michael Grabik & Thomy Tonia & Peter Jüni & Frank Pétavy & Francesco Pignatti & Julia Bohlius, 2017. "Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0189309
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189309
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189309&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0189309?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. Su Golder & Yoon K Loke & Kath Wright & Gill Norman, 2016. "Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, September.
    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. Luca Aquilanti & Marco Mascitti & Lucrezia Togni & Maria Contaldo & Giorgio Rappelli & Andrea Santarelli, 2022. "A Systematic Review on Nerve-Related Adverse Effects following Mandibular Nerve Block Anesthesia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Sohrabpour, Vahid & Oghazi, Pejvak & Toorajipour, Reza & Nazarpour, Ali, 2021. "Export sales forecasting using artificial intelligence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. Richeek Pradhan & Sonal Singh, 2018. "Comparison of Data on Serious Adverse Events and Mortality in ClinicalTrials.gov, Corresponding Journal Articles, and FDA Medical Reviews: Cross-Sectional Analysis," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 41(9), pages 849-857, September.
    4. Guillermo Prada-Ramallal & Bahi Takkouche & Adolfo Figueiras, 2017. "Summarising the Evidence for Drug Safety: A Methodological Discussion of Different Meta-Analysis Approaches," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(7), pages 547-558, July.
    5. Christen M. Gray & Fiona Grimson & Deborah Layton & Stuart Pocock & Joseph Kim, 2020. "A Framework for Methodological Choice and Evidence Assessment for Studies Using External Comparators from Real-World Data," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(7), pages 623-633, July.

    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:pone00:0189309. 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.