Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Validity of systematic reviews may be affected by non-publication of statistically non-significant or unfavorable clinical trial results. One function of clinical trial registries is to make these non-published studies available and thereby reduce potential publication bias. We aim to assess the use of clinical trial registries in published systematic reviews in urology.

Methods

We identified all systematic reviews published in the five highest-impact general urology journals that publish original research between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Full-text analysis was performed to determine if protocols included searching clinical trial registries meeting WHO Registry Network criteria.

Results

Of a total of 204 search results, 92 were included in the analysis as systematic reviews. The majority searched the MEDLINE (91, 98%), EMBASE (69, 75%), and Cochrane (49, 53%) databases. Based on published methods, only 16 (17%) systematic reviews searched any clinical trial registries: 14 (15%) ClinicalTrials.gov, 6 (6%) WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and 2 (2%) ISRCTN registry. Rates of searching clinical trial registries were low regardless of the journal: 8 of 34 (24%) in European Urology; 2 of 10 (20%) in BJU International; 3 of 17 (18%) in Urology; 2 of 18 (11%) in The Journal of Urology; and 1 of 13 (8%) in World Journal of Urology.

Conclusion

The majority of recently published systematic reviews in urology do not routinely search clinical trial registries. Inclusion of these registries can help identify unpublished trial data, which may improve the quality of systematic reviews by reducing publication bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126(5):376–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263(10):1385–1389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias G (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS One 8(7):e66844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066844

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L (2012) Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 344:d7202. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baudard M, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Perrodeau E, Boutron I (2017) Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 356:j448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j448

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, International Committee of Medical Journal E (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364(9438):911–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17034-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, International Committee of Medical Journal E (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351(12):1250–1251. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe048225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, International Committee of Medical Journal E (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 292(11):1363–1364. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.11.1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. US Public Law 110–85; 21 USC 301, September 27, 2007

  11. World Health Organization. WHO statement on public disclosure of clinical trial results. http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/reporting/en/. Accessed Nov 2018

  12. Herrmann D, Sinnett P, Holmes J, Khan S, Koller C, Vassar M (2017) Statistical controversies in clinical research: publication bias evaluations are not routinely conducted in clinical oncology systematic reviews. Ann Oncol 28(5):931–937. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jones CW, Handler L, Crowell KE, Keil LG, Weaver MA, Platts-Mills TF (2013) Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 347:f6104. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6104

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones CW, Keil LG, Weaver MA, Platts-Mills TF (2014) Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis. Syst Rev 3:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-126

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Boden C, Bidonde J, Busch A (2017) Gaps exist in the current guidance on the use of randomized controlled trial study protocols in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 85:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Keil LG, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW (2015) Systematic reviews published in emergency medicine journals do not routinely search clinical trials registries: a cross-sectional analysis. Ann Emerg Med 66(4):424–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sinnett PM, Carr B, Cook G, Mucklerath H, Varney L, Weiher M, Yerokhin V, Vassar M (2015) Systematic reviewers in clinical neurology do not routinely search clinical trials registries. PLoS One 10(7):e0134596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Umberham BA, Detweiler BN, Sims MT, Vassar M (2017) Clinical trial registry use in anaesthesiology systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals and the Cochrane Library. Eur J Anaesthesiol 34(12):797–807. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bibens ME, Chong AB, Vassar M (2016) Utilization of clinical trials registries in obstetrics and gynecology systematic reviews. Obstet Gynecol 127(2):248–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges T (2005) Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 330(7482):68. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization. International clinical trials registry platform-WHO registry criteria. http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/criteria_summary/en/. Accessed Nov 2018

  22. World Health Organization. International clinical trials registry platform-primary registries. http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/. Accessed Nov 2018

  23. Han JL, Gandhi S, Bockoven CG, Narayan VM, Dahm P (2017) The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998–2015): an assessment of methodological quality. BJU Int 119(4):638–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Narayan VM, Chrouser K, Haynes RB, Parrish R, Dahm P (2016) Defining the publication source of high-quality evidence in urology: an analysis of EvidenceUpdates. BJU Int 117(6):861–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J (2005) In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 58(9):894–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, Macaskill P, Schwarzer G, Duval S, Altman DG, Moher D, Higgins JP (2011) Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 343:d4002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa#DevelopmentOfRegulations. Accessed Nov 2018

  29. Final Rule for Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission (42 CFR Part 11). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/21/2016-22129/clinical-trials-registration-and-results-information-submission. Accessed Nov 2018

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Tareq Aro, Kevin Koo & Brian R. Matlaga

  2. Robotics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA

    Tareq Aro

Authors
  1. Tareq Aro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian R. Matlaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TA: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing; KK: Protocol/project development, Data collection or management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing; BRM: Manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tareq Aro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

No patients’ data was collected, informed consent is not applicable to this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aro, T., Koo, K. & Matlaga, B.R. Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology. World J Urol 38, 1335–1340 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02914-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02914-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation