Impact of Selective Reporting Bias on Stroke Trials: Potential Compromise in Evidence Synthesis - A Cross-sectional Study

Overview

Journal BMC Med Res Methodol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Health Services

Date 2024 Oct 29

PMID 39468435

Authors

Xinyao Wang

Youlin Long

Na Zhang

Xinyi Wang

Qiong Guo

Ya Deng

Jin Huang

Liang Du

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Accurate reporting of outcomes is crucial for interpreting the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, selectively reporting outcomes in publications to achieve researchers' anticipated results still occurs frequently. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of selective reporting of outcomes in RCTs on treating acute ischemic stroke (AIS), identify factors contributing to this issue, and assess its potential impact on the degree and direction of intervention effect.

Methods: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to collect interventional RCTs on AIS published from 2020 to 2022. Full texts of RCTs were reviewed, and only those reporting International Clinical Trials Registry Platform primary registry numbers were included. Registration information of the RCTs was extracted from the registry platforms and compared with the publications' details to assess the selective reporting of outcomes. Bayesian multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze the reasons behind selective reporting.

Results: Among the total of 159 AIS RCTs identified, 82 (51.6%) were ultimately included, as they reported registration numbers, which encompassed 819 outcomes. Among them, 72 RCTs (87.8%) and 497 outcomes (60.7%) exhibited selective reporting. Omission-type selective reporting (downgrading, omitting, or ambiguously reporting) accounted for 36.4%, while addition-type selective reporting (upgrading, adding, or altering the measurement scope of outcomes) comprised 63.6%. Omission-type selective reporting correlated with negative results (OR: 7.39; 95% CI: 4.08-13.44), whereas addition-type selective reporting correlated with positive results (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.34-3.26) and publication in journals that are not in the top quartile of the Journal Citation Reports (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.15-5.38).

Conclusions: Registered interventional AIS RCTs still face significant issues regarding selective reporting of outcomes. Therefore, it is necessary to further evaluate the influence of selective reporting bias on the positive results obtained from individual AIS RCTs and the systematic reviews based on these RCTs.

References

Saini V, Guada L, Yavagal D . Global Epidemiology of Stroke and Access to Acute Ischemic Stroke Interventions. Neurology. 2021; 97(20 Suppl 2):S6-S16. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012781. View

Jia Y, Huang D, Wen J, Liang J, Qureshi R, Wang Y . Association between switching of primary outcomes and reported trial findings among randomized drug trials from China. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 132:10-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.023. View

Mokin M, Kass-Hout T, Kass-Hout O, Dumont T, Kan P, Snyder K . Intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke with internal carotid artery occlusion: a systematic review of clinical outcomes. Stroke. 2012; 43(9):2362-8. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.655621. View

Mullen M, Pisapia J, Tilwa S, Messe S, Stein S . Systematic review of outcome after ischemic stroke due to anterior circulation occlusion treated with intravenous, intra-arterial, or combined intravenous+intra-arterial thrombolysis. Stroke. 2012; 43(9):2350-5. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.639211. View

Higgins J, Altman D, Gotzsche P, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman A . The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928. PMC: 3196245. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928. View

Chan A, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr M, Gotzsche P, Altman D . Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004; 291(20):2457-65. DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457. View

Kenakin T, Johnson S . The importance of the alpha-adrenoceptor agonist activity of dobutamine to inotropic selectivity in the anaesthetized cat. Eur J Pharmacol. 1985; 111(3):347-54. DOI: 10.1016/0014-2999(85)90641-7. View

Loder E, Loder S, Cook S . Characteristics and publication fate of unregistered and retrospectively registered clinical trials submitted to over 4 years. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(2):e020037. PMC: 5829901. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020037. View

Yousefi-Nooraie R, Shakiba B, Mortaz-Hejri S . Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6:37. PMC: 1550721. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-37. View

10.

Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke M, Oxman A, Dickersin K . Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (1):MR000006. PMC: 8276556. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3. View

11.

Harriman S, Patel J . When are clinical trials registered? An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration. Trials. 2016; 17:187. PMC: 4832501. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1310-8. View

12.

Minhas J, Chithiramohan T, Wang X, Barnes S, Clough R, Kadicheeni M . Oral antiplatelet therapy for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 1:CD000029. PMC: 8758582. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000029.pub4. View

13.

Fuentes J, Armijo-Olivo S, da Costa B, Ha C, Saltaji H, Arenti C . Does Type of Sponsorship of Randomized Controlled Trials Influence Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Rehabilitation: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 99(10):909-916. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001444. View

14.

Xu C, Yu T, Furuya-Kanamori L, Lin L, Zorzela L, Zhou X . Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study. BMJ. 2022; 377:e069155. PMC: 9086856. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069155. View

15.

Sendyk D, Souza N, Cesar Neto J, Tatakis D, Pannuti C . Selective outcome reporting in root coverage randomized clinical trials. J Clin Periodontol. 2021; 48(6):867-877. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13451. View

16.

Singh B, Parsaik A, Prokop L, Mittal M . Endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013; 88(10):1056-65. PMC: 3883722. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.07.015. View

17.

Yoshimura S, Sakai N, Yamagami H, Uchida K, Beppu M, Toyoda K . Endovascular Therapy for Acute Stroke with a Large Ischemic Region. N Engl J Med. 2022; 386(14):1303-1313. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2118191. View

18.

Chen T, Li C, Qin R, Wang Y, Yu D, Dodd J . Comparison of Clinical Trial Changes in Primary Outcome and Reported Intervention Effect Size Between Trial Registration and Publication. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2(7):e197242. PMC: 6646984. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7242. View

19.

Campbell B, Khatri P . Stroke. Lancet. 2020; 396(10244):129-142. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31179-X. View

20.

Feigin V, Norrving B, Mensah G . Global Burden of Stroke. Circ Res. 2017; 120(3):439-448. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308413. View