Primary endpoint discrepancies were found in one in ten clinical drug trials. Results of an inception cohort study

Cornelis A. van den Bogert, Patrick C. Souverein, Cecile T.M. Brekelmans, Susan W.J. Janssen, Gerard H. Koëter, Hubert G.M. Leufkens, Lex M. Bouter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective To identify the occurrence and determinants of protocol-publication discrepancies in clinical drug trials. Study Design and Setting All published clinical drug trials reviewed by the Dutch institutional review boards in 2007 were analyzed. Discrepancies between trial protocols and publications were measured among key reporting aspects. We evaluated the association of trial characteristics with discrepancies in primary endpoints by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Of the 334 published trials, 32 (9.6%) had a protocol/publication discrepancy in the primary endpoints. Among the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; N = 204), 12 (5.9%) had a discrepancy in the primary endpoint. Investigator-initiated trials with and without industry (co-) funding were associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints compared with industry-sponsored trials (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.4–9.9 and RR 4.4; 95% CI 2.0–9.5, respectively). Furthermore, other than phase 1–4 trials (vs. phase 1; RR 4.6; 95% CI 1.1–19.3), multicenter trials were also conducted outside the European Union (vs. single center; RR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1–0.6), not prospectively registered trials (RR 3.3; 95% CI 1.5–7.5), non-RCTs (vs. superiority RCT; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2–4.8) and, among the RCTs, crossover compared with a parallel group design (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.1–12.3) were significantly associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints. Conclusions Improvement in completeness of reporting is still needed, especially among investigator-initiated trials and non-RCTs. To eliminate undisclosed discrepancies, trial protocols should be available in the public domain at the same time when the trial is published.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)199-208
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume89
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2017

Cite this

van den Bogert, C. A., Souverein, P. C., Brekelmans, C. T. M., Janssen, S. W. J., Koëter, G. H., Leufkens, H. G. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2017). Primary endpoint discrepancies were found in one in ten clinical drug trials. Results of an inception cohort study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.012
van den Bogert, Cornelis A. ; Souverein, Patrick C. ; Brekelmans, Cecile T.M. ; Janssen, Susan W.J. ; Koëter, Gerard H. ; Leufkens, Hubert G.M. ; Bouter, Lex M. / Primary endpoint discrepancies were found in one in ten clinical drug trials. Results of an inception cohort study. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017 ; Vol. 89. pp. 199-208.
@article{0372f56c6cf5436cb41d1cebb9b6ecfc,
title = "Primary endpoint discrepancies were found in one in ten clinical drug trials. Results of an inception cohort study",
abstract = "Objective To identify the occurrence and determinants of protocol-publication discrepancies in clinical drug trials. Study Design and Setting All published clinical drug trials reviewed by the Dutch institutional review boards in 2007 were analyzed. Discrepancies between trial protocols and publications were measured among key reporting aspects. We evaluated the association of trial characteristics with discrepancies in primary endpoints by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95{\%} confidence interval (CI). Results Of the 334 published trials, 32 (9.6{\%}) had a protocol/publication discrepancy in the primary endpoints. Among the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; N = 204), 12 (5.9{\%}) had a discrepancy in the primary endpoint. Investigator-initiated trials with and without industry (co-) funding were associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints compared with industry-sponsored trials (RR 3.7; 95{\%} CI 1.4–9.9 and RR 4.4; 95{\%} CI 2.0–9.5, respectively). Furthermore, other than phase 1–4 trials (vs. phase 1; RR 4.6; 95{\%} CI 1.1–19.3), multicenter trials were also conducted outside the European Union (vs. single center; RR 0.2; 95{\%} CI 0.1–0.6), not prospectively registered trials (RR 3.3; 95{\%} CI 1.5–7.5), non-RCTs (vs. superiority RCT; RR 2.4; 95{\%} CI 1.2–4.8) and, among the RCTs, crossover compared with a parallel group design (RR 3.7; 95{\%} CI 1.1–12.3) were significantly associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints. Conclusions Improvement in completeness of reporting is still needed, especially among investigator-initiated trials and non-RCTs. To eliminate undisclosed discrepancies, trial protocols should be available in the public domain at the same time when the trial is published.",
keywords = "Clinical protocols, Clinical trial, Discrepancies, Outcome reporting bias, Primary endpoints, Publication bias, Selective reporting",
author = "{van den Bogert}, {Cornelis A.} and Souverein, {Patrick C.} and Brekelmans, {Cecile T.M.} and Janssen, {Susan W.J.} and Ko{\"e}ter, {Gerard H.} and Leufkens, {Hubert G.M.} and Bouter, {Lex M.}",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.012",
language = "English",
volume = "89",
pages = "199--208",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

Primary endpoint discrepancies were found in one in ten clinical drug trials. Results of an inception cohort study. / van den Bogert, Cornelis A.; Souverein, Patrick C.; Brekelmans, Cecile T.M.; Janssen, Susan W.J.; Koëter, Gerard H.; Leufkens, Hubert G.M.; Bouter, Lex M.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 89, 01.09.2017, p. 199-208.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Primary endpoint discrepancies were found in one in ten clinical drug trials. Results of an inception cohort study

AU - van den Bogert, Cornelis A.

AU - Souverein, Patrick C.

AU - Brekelmans, Cecile T.M.

AU - Janssen, Susan W.J.

AU - Koëter, Gerard H.

AU - Leufkens, Hubert G.M.

AU - Bouter, Lex M.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Objective To identify the occurrence and determinants of protocol-publication discrepancies in clinical drug trials. Study Design and Setting All published clinical drug trials reviewed by the Dutch institutional review boards in 2007 were analyzed. Discrepancies between trial protocols and publications were measured among key reporting aspects. We evaluated the association of trial characteristics with discrepancies in primary endpoints by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Of the 334 published trials, 32 (9.6%) had a protocol/publication discrepancy in the primary endpoints. Among the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; N = 204), 12 (5.9%) had a discrepancy in the primary endpoint. Investigator-initiated trials with and without industry (co-) funding were associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints compared with industry-sponsored trials (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.4–9.9 and RR 4.4; 95% CI 2.0–9.5, respectively). Furthermore, other than phase 1–4 trials (vs. phase 1; RR 4.6; 95% CI 1.1–19.3), multicenter trials were also conducted outside the European Union (vs. single center; RR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1–0.6), not prospectively registered trials (RR 3.3; 95% CI 1.5–7.5), non-RCTs (vs. superiority RCT; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2–4.8) and, among the RCTs, crossover compared with a parallel group design (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.1–12.3) were significantly associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints. Conclusions Improvement in completeness of reporting is still needed, especially among investigator-initiated trials and non-RCTs. To eliminate undisclosed discrepancies, trial protocols should be available in the public domain at the same time when the trial is published.

AB - Objective To identify the occurrence and determinants of protocol-publication discrepancies in clinical drug trials. Study Design and Setting All published clinical drug trials reviewed by the Dutch institutional review boards in 2007 were analyzed. Discrepancies between trial protocols and publications were measured among key reporting aspects. We evaluated the association of trial characteristics with discrepancies in primary endpoints by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Of the 334 published trials, 32 (9.6%) had a protocol/publication discrepancy in the primary endpoints. Among the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; N = 204), 12 (5.9%) had a discrepancy in the primary endpoint. Investigator-initiated trials with and without industry (co-) funding were associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints compared with industry-sponsored trials (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.4–9.9 and RR 4.4; 95% CI 2.0–9.5, respectively). Furthermore, other than phase 1–4 trials (vs. phase 1; RR 4.6; 95% CI 1.1–19.3), multicenter trials were also conducted outside the European Union (vs. single center; RR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1–0.6), not prospectively registered trials (RR 3.3; 95% CI 1.5–7.5), non-RCTs (vs. superiority RCT; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2–4.8) and, among the RCTs, crossover compared with a parallel group design (RR 3.7; 95% CI 1.1–12.3) were significantly associated with having discrepancies in the primary endpoints. Conclusions Improvement in completeness of reporting is still needed, especially among investigator-initiated trials and non-RCTs. To eliminate undisclosed discrepancies, trial protocols should be available in the public domain at the same time when the trial is published.

KW - Clinical protocols

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Discrepancies

KW - Outcome reporting bias

KW - Primary endpoints

KW - Publication bias

KW - Selective reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020752485&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.012

M3 - Article

VL - 89

SP - 199

EP - 208

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -