Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar 15;12(3):e0173042.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173042. eCollection 2017.

Worldwide Trends in Volume and Quality of Published Protocols of Randomized Controlled Trials

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Worldwide Trends in Volume and Quality of Published Protocols of Randomized Controlled Trials

Belle V van Rosmalen et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article

Erratum in

Abstract

Introduction: Publishing protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCT) facilitates a more detailed description of study rational, design, and related ethical and safety issues, which should promote transparency. Little is known about how the practice of publishing protocols developed over time. Therefore, this study describes the worldwide trends in volume and methodological quality of published RCT protocols.

Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE, identifying RCT protocols published over a decade from 1 September 2001. Data were extracted on quality characteristics of RCT protocols. The primary outcome, methodological quality, was assessed by individual methodological characteristics (adequate generation of allocation, concealment of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis). A comparison was made by publication period (First, September 2001- December 2004; Second, January 2005-May 2008; Third, June 2008-September 2011), geographical region and medical specialty.

Results: The number of published RCT protocols increased from 69 in the first, to 390 in the third period (p<0.0001). Internal medicine and paediatrics were the most common specialty topics. Whereas most published RCT protocols in the first period originated from North America (n = 30, 44%), in the second and third period this was Europe (respectively, n = 65, 47% and n = 190, 48%, p = 0.02). Quality of RCT protocols was higher in Europe and Australasia, compared to North America (OR = 0.63, CI = 0.40-0.99, p = 0.04). Adequate generation of allocation improved with time (44%, 58%, 67%, p = 0.001), as did concealment of allocation (38%, 53%, 55%, p = 0.03). Surgical protocols had the highest quality among the three specialty topics used in this study (OR = 1.94, CI = 1.09-3.45, p = 0.02).

Conclusion: Publishing RCT protocols has become popular, with a five-fold increase in the past decade. The quality of published RCT protocols also improved, although variation between geographical regions and across medical specialties was seen. This emphasizes the importance of international standards of comprehensive training in RCT methodology.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 3 articles

References

    1. De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet. 2005;365(9474):1827–9. Epub 2005/06/01. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66588-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet. 2004;364(9438):911–2. Epub 2004/09/15. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17034-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ghersi D, Pang T. From Mexico to Mali: four years in the history of clinical trial registration. Journal of evidence-based medicine. 2009;2(1):1–7. Epub 2009/02/01. 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01014.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zarin DA, Ide NC, Tse T, Harlan WR, West JC, Lindberg DA. Issues in the registration of clinical trials. Jama. 2007;297(19):2112–20. Epub 2007/05/18. 10.1001/jama.297.19.2112 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. The New England journal of medicine. 2011;364(9):852–60. Epub 2011/03/04. PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3066456. 10.1056/NEJMsa1012065 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback