Access to unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans of randomised trials

Abstract

Background Access to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request. Methods We used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times. Results Overall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%. Conclusions Most study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.

The rise of a mega‐journal in public health publishing

“…Many of the publication procedures introduced in recent years by journals to improve the quality and integrity of published research, such as Registered Reports, data sharing and prospective registration (Chambers & Tzavella, 2022; Nuzzo, 2015), are likely to make both manuscript production and manuscript review more time‐consuming. Adherence to journal policies concerning such procedures is poor even in high‐impact journals, including BMCPH (Campbell et al, 2022; Hardwicke et al, 2020; Taylor & Gorman, 2022), so an argument could be made that assigning oversight of these to staff might lead to improvement. However, whoever is responsible for the tasks associated with such editorial procedures, carrying them out thoroughly will increase, not decrease, the peer review process.…”

A 10-year update to the principles for clinical trial data sharing by pharmaceutical companies: perspectives based on a decade of literature and policies

“…Statistical analysis plans (SAPs) and protocols are essential resources for cross-referencing planned analyses and reporting of outcome/adverse event measures from clinical trials [ 48 ]. They also provide researchers with a thorough understanding of the data gathered during a clinical trial, facilitating the design of secondary data analyses [ 19 ].…”