Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort

Mieke L. van Driel, An Im De Sutter, Jan De Maeseneer, Thierry Christiaens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the value of searching for unpublished data by exploring the extent to which Cochrane reviews include unpublished data and by evaluating the quality of unpublished trials. Study Design and Setting: We screened all 2,462 completed Cochrane reviews published since 2000 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2006. In a random sample (n = 61) of 292 reviews, including unpublished trials, we studied all 116 references. Results: Unpublished trials make up 8.8% of all included trials in our sample. Thirty-eight percent of the "unpublished" trials have in fact been published. Allocation concealment was "unclear" or not adequate in 54.3% and 61.3% reported blinding. In 47.2% reported withdrawal rates were >20%. Trials that were eventually published had larger mean population sizes (P-value, 0.02). Of the reported sponsors, 87.3% were drug companies. Methodological quality and publication bias are mentioned in half of the reviews and explored in a third. Quality ratings did not have consequences for pooling, because 82.8% was included in the forest plots. Conclusions: A minority of Cochrane reviews include "unpublished trials" and many of these are eventually published. Truly unpublished studies have poor or unclear methodological quality. Therefore, it may be better to invest in regular updating of reviews, rather than in extensive searching for unpublished data.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume62
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2009

Fingerprint

Publication Bias
Population Density
Databases
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Forests
Data Accuracy

Cite this

van Driel, Mieke L. ; De Sutter, An Im ; De Maeseneer, Jan ; Christiaens, Thierry. / Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009 ; Vol. 62, No. 8.
@article{1e86dd54e33a4c20907f6cc923fa7250,
title = "Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the value of searching for unpublished data by exploring the extent to which Cochrane reviews include unpublished data and by evaluating the quality of unpublished trials. Study Design and Setting: We screened all 2,462 completed Cochrane reviews published since 2000 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2006. In a random sample (n = 61) of 292 reviews, including unpublished trials, we studied all 116 references. Results: Unpublished trials make up 8.8{\%} of all included trials in our sample. Thirty-eight percent of the {"}unpublished{"} trials have in fact been published. Allocation concealment was {"}unclear{"} or not adequate in 54.3{\%} and 61.3{\%} reported blinding. In 47.2{\%} reported withdrawal rates were >20{\%}. Trials that were eventually published had larger mean population sizes (P-value, 0.02). Of the reported sponsors, 87.3{\%} were drug companies. Methodological quality and publication bias are mentioned in half of the reviews and explored in a third. Quality ratings did not have consequences for pooling, because 82.8{\%} was included in the forest plots. Conclusions: A minority of Cochrane reviews include {"}unpublished trials{"} and many of these are eventually published. Truly unpublished studies have poor or unclear methodological quality. Therefore, it may be better to invest in regular updating of reviews, rather than in extensive searching for unpublished data.",
author = "{van Driel}, {Mieke L.} and {De Sutter}, {An Im} and {De Maeseneer}, Jan and Thierry Christiaens",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.010",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "8",

}

Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. / van Driel, Mieke L.; De Sutter, An Im; De Maeseneer, Jan; Christiaens, Thierry.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 62, No. 8, 08.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort

AU - van Driel, Mieke L.

AU - De Sutter, An Im

AU - De Maeseneer, Jan

AU - Christiaens, Thierry

PY - 2009/8

Y1 - 2009/8

N2 - Objective: To assess the value of searching for unpublished data by exploring the extent to which Cochrane reviews include unpublished data and by evaluating the quality of unpublished trials. Study Design and Setting: We screened all 2,462 completed Cochrane reviews published since 2000 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2006. In a random sample (n = 61) of 292 reviews, including unpublished trials, we studied all 116 references. Results: Unpublished trials make up 8.8% of all included trials in our sample. Thirty-eight percent of the "unpublished" trials have in fact been published. Allocation concealment was "unclear" or not adequate in 54.3% and 61.3% reported blinding. In 47.2% reported withdrawal rates were >20%. Trials that were eventually published had larger mean population sizes (P-value, 0.02). Of the reported sponsors, 87.3% were drug companies. Methodological quality and publication bias are mentioned in half of the reviews and explored in a third. Quality ratings did not have consequences for pooling, because 82.8% was included in the forest plots. Conclusions: A minority of Cochrane reviews include "unpublished trials" and many of these are eventually published. Truly unpublished studies have poor or unclear methodological quality. Therefore, it may be better to invest in regular updating of reviews, rather than in extensive searching for unpublished data.

AB - Objective: To assess the value of searching for unpublished data by exploring the extent to which Cochrane reviews include unpublished data and by evaluating the quality of unpublished trials. Study Design and Setting: We screened all 2,462 completed Cochrane reviews published since 2000 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2006. In a random sample (n = 61) of 292 reviews, including unpublished trials, we studied all 116 references. Results: Unpublished trials make up 8.8% of all included trials in our sample. Thirty-eight percent of the "unpublished" trials have in fact been published. Allocation concealment was "unclear" or not adequate in 54.3% and 61.3% reported blinding. In 47.2% reported withdrawal rates were >20%. Trials that were eventually published had larger mean population sizes (P-value, 0.02). Of the reported sponsors, 87.3% were drug companies. Methodological quality and publication bias are mentioned in half of the reviews and explored in a third. Quality ratings did not have consequences for pooling, because 82.8% was included in the forest plots. Conclusions: A minority of Cochrane reviews include "unpublished trials" and many of these are eventually published. Truly unpublished studies have poor or unclear methodological quality. Therefore, it may be better to invest in regular updating of reviews, rather than in extensive searching for unpublished data.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67649331678&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.010

M3 - Article

VL - 62

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 8

ER -