↓ Skip to main content

From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
58 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
3 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials
Published in
Trials, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1189-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Berendt, Torbjörn Callréus, Lene Grejs Petersen, Karin Friis Bach, Henrik Enghusen Poulsen, Kim Dalhoff

Abstract

Unacknowledged inconsistencies in the reporting of clinical trials undermine the validity of the results of the trials. Little is known about inconsistency in the reporting of academic clinical drug trials. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of consistency between protocols and published reports of academic clinical drug trials. A comparison was made between study protocols and their corresponding published reports. We assessed the overall consistency, which was defined as the absence of discrepancy regarding study type (categorized as either exploratory or confirmatory), primary objective, primary endpoint, and - for confirmatory trials only - hypothesis and sample size calculation. We used logistic regression, χ(2), and Fisher's exact test. A total of 282 applications of academic clinical drug trials were submitted to the Danish Health and Medicines Authority in 1999, 2001, and 2003, 95 of which fulfilled the eligibility criteria and had at least one corresponding published report reporting data on trial subjects. Overall consistency was observed in 39 % of the trials (95 % CI: 29 to 49 %). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constituted 72 % (95 % CI: 63 to 81 %) of the sample, and 87 % (95 % CI: 80 to 94 %) of the trials were hospital based. Overall consistency between protocols and their corresponding published reports was low. Motivators for the inconsistencies are unknown but do not seem restricted to economic incentives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 20%