Objectives To evaluate the compliance with prospective registration and inclusion of the trial registration number (TRN) in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and to analyse the rationale behind, and detect selective registration bias in, retrospective trial registration. Design Cross sectional analysis. Data sources PubMed, the 17 World Health Organization’s trial registries, University of Toronto library, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of member journals, and the InCites Journal Citation Reports. Study selection criteria RCTs registered in any WHO trial registry and published in any PubMed indexed journal in 2018. Results This study included 10 500 manuscripts published in 2105 journals. Overall, 71.2% (7473/10500) reported the TRN and 41.7% (3013/7218) complied with prospective trial registration. The univariable and multivariable analyses reported significant relations (P<0.05) between reporting the TRN and the impact factor and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A significant relation (P<0.05) was also observed between prospective trial registration and the registry, region, condition, funding, trial size, interval between paper registration and submission dates, impact factor, and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A manuscript published in an ICMJE member journal was 5.8 times more likely to include the TRN (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 8.2), and a published trial was 1.8 times more likely to be registered prospectively (1.8, 1.5 to 2.2) when published in an ICMJE member journal compared with other journals. This study detected a new form of bias, selective registration bias, with a higher proportion (85.2% (616/723)) of trials registered retrospectively within a year of submission for publication. Higher rates of retrospective registrations were observed within the first three to eight weeks after enrolment of study participants. Within the 286 RCTs registered retrospectively and published in an ICMJE member journal, only 2.8% (8/286) of the authors included a statement justifying the delayed registration. Reasons included lack of awareness, error of omission, and the registration process taking longer than anticipated. Conclusions This study found a high compliance in reporting of the TRN for trial papers published in ICMJE member journals, but prospective trial registration was low.

BackgroundThe high prevalence rate of asthma represents a major societal burden. Advancements in information technology continue to affect the delivery of patient care in all areas of medicine. Internet-based solutions, social media, and mobile technology could address some of the problems associated with increasing asthma prevalence.ObjectiveThis review evaluates Internet-based asthma interventions that were published between 2004 and October 2014 with respect to the use of behavioral change theoretical frameworks, applied clinical guidelines, and assessment tools.MethodsThe search term (Asthma AND [Online or Internet or Mobile or Application or eHealth or App]) was applied to six bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, BioMed Central, ProQuest Computing, Web of Knowledge, and ACM Digital Library) including only English-language articles published between 2004 and October 2014. In total, 3932 articles matched the priori search terms and were reviewed by the primary reviewer based on their titles, index terms, and abstracts. The matching articles were then screened by the primary reviewer for inclusion or exclusion based on their abstract, study type, and intervention objectives with respect to the full set of priori inclusion and exclusion criteria; 331 duplicates were identified and removed. A total of 85 articles were included for in-depth review and the remaining 3516 articles were excluded. The primary and secondary reviewer independently reviewed the complete content of the 85 included articles to identify the applied behavioral change theories, clinical guidelines, and assessment tools. Findings and any disagreement between reviewers were resolved by in-depth discussion and through a consolidation process for each of the included articles.ResultsThe reviewers identified 17 out of 85 interventions (20%) where at least one model, framework, and/or construct of a behavioral change theory were applied. The review identified six clinical guidelines that were applied across 30 of the 85 interventions (35%) as well as a total of 21 assessment tools that were applied across 32 of the 85 interventions (38%).ConclusionsThe findings of this literature review indicate that the majority of published Internet-based interventions do not use any documented behavioral change theory, clinical guidelines, and/or assessment tools to inform their design. Further, it was found that the application of clinical guidelines and assessment tools were more salient across the reviewed interventions. A consequence, as such, is that many Internet-based asthma interventions are designed in an ad hoc manner, without the use of any notable evidence-based theoretical frameworks, clinical guidelines, and/or assessment tools.