A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results

Abstract Background Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links. Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched f...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rabia Bashir, Florence T. Bourgeois, Adam G. Dunn
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2017-07-01
Series:Systematic Reviews
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-017-0518-3
id doaj-99988ade27cc47bbb1baeed8278da2c1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-99988ade27cc47bbb1baeed8278da2c12020-11-24T22:13:29ZengBMCSystematic Reviews2046-40532017-07-016111710.1186/s13643-017-0518-3A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published resultsRabia Bashir0Florence T. Bourgeois1Adam G. Dunn2Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie UniversityComputational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children’s HospitalCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie UniversityAbstract Background Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links. Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time. Results In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R 2 = 0.02, p = 0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R 2 = 0.01, p = 0.73). Conclusions The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-017-0518-3Clinical trials as topicTrial registrationPublication biasReporting biasSystematic reviews as topic
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Rabia Bashir
Florence T. Bourgeois
Adam G. Dunn
spellingShingle Rabia Bashir
Florence T. Bourgeois
Adam G. Dunn
A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results
Systematic Reviews
Clinical trials as topic
Trial registration
Publication bias
Reporting bias
Systematic reviews as topic
author_facet Rabia Bashir
Florence T. Bourgeois
Adam G. Dunn
author_sort Rabia Bashir
title A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results
title_short A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results
title_full A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results
title_fullStr A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results
title_sort systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results
publisher BMC
series Systematic Reviews
issn 2046-4053
publishDate 2017-07-01
description Abstract Background Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links. Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time. Results In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R 2 = 0.02, p = 0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R 2 = 0.01, p = 0.73). Conclusions The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.
topic Clinical trials as topic
Trial registration
Publication bias
Reporting bias
Systematic reviews as topic
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-017-0518-3
work_keys_str_mv AT rabiabashir asystematicreviewoftheprocessesusedtolinkclinicaltrialregistrationstotheirpublishedresults
AT florencetbourgeois asystematicreviewoftheprocessesusedtolinkclinicaltrialregistrationstotheirpublishedresults
AT adamgdunn asystematicreviewoftheprocessesusedtolinkclinicaltrialregistrationstotheirpublishedresults
AT rabiabashir systematicreviewoftheprocessesusedtolinkclinicaltrialregistrationstotheirpublishedresults
AT florencetbourgeois systematicreviewoftheprocessesusedtolinkclinicaltrialregistrationstotheirpublishedresults
AT adamgdunn systematicreviewoftheprocessesusedtolinkclinicaltrialregistrationstotheirpublishedresults
_version_ 1725800793625329664