How Much Participant Outcome Data Is Missing from Sight:Findings from a Cohort of Trials Submitted to a German Research Ethics Committee
Keywords
Cohort StudiesConfidence Intervals
Ethics Committees, Research/statistics
&
numerical data
Germany
Health Services Research/statistics
&
numerical data
Humans
Publication Bias/statistics
&
numerical data
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics
&
numerical data
Registries/statistics
&
numerical data
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/how-much-participant-outcome-data-is-missing-from-sight(6f18b845-bed1-4b06-a38d-aaee3552ae79).htmlhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157883
Abstract
<p
>
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.
<
/p
>
<
p
>
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 The total amount of published and unpublished outcome data from all trial participants was calculated for each trial and the overall proportion of missing data from both unpublished and published trials computed.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 From 308 parallel group trials in the study cohort, 167 were published and 141 were unpublished.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the 19% of participant data that were missing, 4% was attributable to missing data from published trials and 15% from unpublished trials.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).
<
/p
>
<
p
>
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.
<
/p
>
Date
2016Type
ArticleIdentifier
oai:pure.atira.dk:publications/6f18b845-bed1-4b06-a38d-aaee3552ae79https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/how-much-participant-outcome-data-is-missing-from-sight(6f18b845-bed1-4b06-a38d-aaee3552ae79).html
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157883
Copyright/License
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessCollections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Trends in Indian health 1998-99.Division of Program Statistics, Staff Office of Planning, Evaluation and Research, Indian Health Service. (UNM Digital Repository, 2001-01-01)The IHS Trends in Indian Health attempts to fulfill the basic statistical information requirements of parties that are interested in the IHS. The tables and charts contained in the IHS Trends in Indian Health describe the IHS program and the health status of American Indians and Alaska Natives residing in the IHS service area. The IHS service area consists of counties on and near federal Indian reservations. The Indians residing in the service area comprise about 60 percent of all Indians residing in the U.S. Information pertaining to the IHS structure and American Indian and Alaska Native demography, patient care, and community health are included. Historical trends are depicted, and comparisons to other population groups are made, when appropriate. Current regional differences information can be found in the IHS companion publication called Regional Differences in Indian Health. The tables and charts are grouped into six major categories: 1) IHS Structure, 2 ) Population Statistics, 3) Natality and Infant/Maternal Mortality Statistics, 4) General Mortality Statistics, 5) Patient Care Statistics, and 6) Community Health Statistics . The tables provide detailed data, while the charts show significant relationships . A table and its corresponding chart appear next to each other. However, some charts that are self-explanatory do not have a corresponding table. Also, a few tables have more than one chart associated with them.
-
Regional differences in Indian Health - 1992.Indian Health Service (UNM Digital Repository, 1991-01-01)The IHS Trends in Indian Health attempts to fulfill the basic statistical information requirements of parties that are interested in the IHS and its relationship with the American Indian and Alaska Native people. The tables and charts describe the IHS program, and the health status of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Information pertaining to the IHS structure, American Indian and Alaska Native demography, patient care, and community health are included. Historical trends are depicted, and comparisons to other population groups are made, when apprpriate. Regional differences information can be found in the IHS companion publication called Regional Differences in Indian Health.
-
Assessing the health attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of African Americans attending church: a comparison from two communitiesWichita State University. Department of Psychology; Green, B. Lee; Lewis, Rhonda K. (Springer, 2012-02-29)Click on the DOI link below to access the article (may not be free).