Publication and outcome reporting of homeopathy trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

Elizabeth T. Thomas, Justin Clark, Paul Glasziou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Homeopathy is gaining popularity globally, despite a lack of convincing evidence of its efficacy. For example, a 2015 review by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) found no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo. However, a concern was that publication bias and outcome reporting bias could have influenced the results of the included systematic reviews. Objectives: To study (i) the rates of non-publication and (ii) rates and types of alteration of planned outcomes of homeopathy studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all homeopathy trials completed more than 2 years ago. We then checked the trial's publication status by examining the publication field in ClinicalTrials.gov, searching PubMed and finally Google Scholar. We also checked whether the registered primary outcome matched the published primary outcome. Results: We found 35 registered homeopathy trials, from 11 countries, completed at least 2 years ago. Of these 35, we found 16 (46%) publications in MEDLINE and Google Scholar. In four (of 16), the primary outcome measures had been switched or modified. Conclusions: Of all homeopathy trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 46% appear to have published within 2 years of completion, of which a quarter altered their primary endpoint. Further research is warranted on the nature and reasons for non-publication.

Original languageEnglish
JournalFocus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
Early online date8 Dec 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Feb 2017

Fingerprint

Homeopathy
Publications
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Publication Bias
Placebo Effect
PubMed
MEDLINE
Biomedical Research
Health
Research

Cite this

@article{b55c4e9cff394b2e8095fc13b3969e61,
title = "Publication and outcome reporting of homeopathy trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov",
abstract = "Background: Homeopathy is gaining popularity globally, despite a lack of convincing evidence of its efficacy. For example, a 2015 review by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) found no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo. However, a concern was that publication bias and outcome reporting bias could have influenced the results of the included systematic reviews. Objectives: To study (i) the rates of non-publication and (ii) rates and types of alteration of planned outcomes of homeopathy studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all homeopathy trials completed more than 2 years ago. We then checked the trial's publication status by examining the publication field in ClinicalTrials.gov, searching PubMed and finally Google Scholar. We also checked whether the registered primary outcome matched the published primary outcome. Results: We found 35 registered homeopathy trials, from 11 countries, completed at least 2 years ago. Of these 35, we found 16 (46{\%}) publications in MEDLINE and Google Scholar. In four (of 16), the primary outcome measures had been switched or modified. Conclusions: Of all homeopathy trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 46{\%} appear to have published within 2 years of completion, of which a quarter altered their primary endpoint. Further research is warranted on the nature and reasons for non-publication.",
author = "Thomas, {Elizabeth T.} and Justin Clark and Paul Glasziou",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1111/fct.12278",
language = "English",
journal = "Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies",
issn = "1465-3753",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

Publication and outcome reporting of homeopathy trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. / Thomas, Elizabeth T.; Clark, Justin; Glasziou, Paul.

In: Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 07.02.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Publication and outcome reporting of homeopathy trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

AU - Thomas, Elizabeth T.

AU - Clark, Justin

AU - Glasziou, Paul

PY - 2017/2/7

Y1 - 2017/2/7

N2 - Background: Homeopathy is gaining popularity globally, despite a lack of convincing evidence of its efficacy. For example, a 2015 review by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) found no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo. However, a concern was that publication bias and outcome reporting bias could have influenced the results of the included systematic reviews. Objectives: To study (i) the rates of non-publication and (ii) rates and types of alteration of planned outcomes of homeopathy studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all homeopathy trials completed more than 2 years ago. We then checked the trial's publication status by examining the publication field in ClinicalTrials.gov, searching PubMed and finally Google Scholar. We also checked whether the registered primary outcome matched the published primary outcome. Results: We found 35 registered homeopathy trials, from 11 countries, completed at least 2 years ago. Of these 35, we found 16 (46%) publications in MEDLINE and Google Scholar. In four (of 16), the primary outcome measures had been switched or modified. Conclusions: Of all homeopathy trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 46% appear to have published within 2 years of completion, of which a quarter altered their primary endpoint. Further research is warranted on the nature and reasons for non-publication.

AB - Background: Homeopathy is gaining popularity globally, despite a lack of convincing evidence of its efficacy. For example, a 2015 review by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) found no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo. However, a concern was that publication bias and outcome reporting bias could have influenced the results of the included systematic reviews. Objectives: To study (i) the rates of non-publication and (ii) rates and types of alteration of planned outcomes of homeopathy studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all homeopathy trials completed more than 2 years ago. We then checked the trial's publication status by examining the publication field in ClinicalTrials.gov, searching PubMed and finally Google Scholar. We also checked whether the registered primary outcome matched the published primary outcome. Results: We found 35 registered homeopathy trials, from 11 countries, completed at least 2 years ago. Of these 35, we found 16 (46%) publications in MEDLINE and Google Scholar. In four (of 16), the primary outcome measures had been switched or modified. Conclusions: Of all homeopathy trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only 46% appear to have published within 2 years of completion, of which a quarter altered their primary endpoint. Further research is warranted on the nature and reasons for non-publication.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012908909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/fct.12278

DO - 10.1111/fct.12278

M3 - Article

JO - Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies

JF - Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies

SN - 1465-3753

ER -