Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Significant factors reported to be related with inconsistency between protocols or registrations and full reports

From: A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research

First author, year Main measures of comparison Significant factors related with inconsistent reporting Association between factors and inconsistent reporting
Chan, 2004 [7] Outcome reporting Outcomes with statistically significant results Higher odds of being fully reported in primary efficacy outcomes with significant results, compared with primary efficacy outcomes with nonsignificant results (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5–5.0)
Chan, 2004 [7] Outcome reporting Outcomes with statistically significant results Higher odds of being fully reported in primary efficacy outcomes with significant results, compared with primary efficacy outcomes with nonsignificant results (OR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.4–4.0); corresponding odds ratio for primary harm outcomes was 4.7 (95% CI: 1.8–12.0)
Kasenda, 2014 [9] Subgroup analysis Study sponsorship Subgroup analyses were more often planned in industry-sponsored trials, compared with investigator-sponsored trials (p < 0.001)
Redmond, 2013 [34] Outcome reporting Outcomes with statistically significant results; Efficacy outcomes (vs harm outcomes); Cardiology (vs all specialties); Infectious diseases (vs all specialties) Higher odds of inconsistent reporting found in outcomes with significant results (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.07–1.78), in efficacy outcomes compared with harm outcomes (OR = 2.99, 95% CI: 2.08–4.30), in Cardiology specialty (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.44–3.79), and in Infectious diseases (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.01–3.13) compared with all specialties combined.