From: Inadequate reporting quality of registered genome editing trials: an observational study
Protocol in registry vs. publicationsa | No. (%) of trials |
---|---|
Sample size | |
Equal absolute number in both sources | 4 (33.3) |
Smaller sample size in publication | 8 (66.7) |
Published full-textb | 5 (41.7) |
Published abstract | 3 (25.0) |
Eligibility age | |
Congruent in both sourcesc | 7 (58.3) |
Reported different inclusion age ranged | 5 (41.7) |
Published full-text | 4 (33.3) |
Published abstract | 1 (8.3) |
Eligibility sex | |
Congruent in both sourcese | 8 (66.7) |
Sex not reported in publication | 4 (33.3) |
Published full-text | 2 (16.7) |
Published abstract | 2 (16.7) |
Other inclusion criteria | |
Congruent in both sourcesf | 3 (25.0) |
More informative in registrye | 3 (25.0) |
More informative in article, with changed particular criteriag | 1 (8.3) |
Only diagnosis defined with different levels of details | 2 (16.7) |
Inclusion criteria not specifically stated in publicationh | 3 (25.0) |
Exclusion criteria | |
Congruent in both sourcesf | 1 (8.3) |
More informative in registryi | 4 (33.3) |
More informative in publication | 1 (8.3) |
Exclusion criteria not specifically stated in publicatione | 6 (50.0) |
Primary outcome measures (POMs) | |
Congruent in both sourcesj | 9 (75.0) |
New outcome introduced in publicationk | 1 (8.3) |
POMs not reported clearly and separately from SOMs in article, but all registered POMs congruent to published | 2 (16.7) |
Secondary outcome measures (SOMs) | |
Congruent in both sources | 2 (16.7) |
More informative in registry | 1 (8.3) |
New outcomes introduced in article | 2 (16.7) |
Particular outcomes missing in progress report abstract | 2 (16.7) |
One registered SOM published as POM | 1 (8.3) |
POMs not reported clearly and separately from SOMs in article, but particular registered SOMs omitted in publication | 2 (16.7) |
SOMs not registered in ClinicalTrials.gove | 2 (16.7) |