Clinical study reports of randomised controlled trials: an exploratory review of previously confidential industry reports

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore the structure and content of a non-random sample of clinical study reports (CSRs) to guide clinicians and systematic reviewers.Search strategyWe searched public sources and lodged Freedom of Information requests for previously confidential CSRs primarily written by the industry for regulators.Selection criteriaCSRs reporting sufficient information for extraction (‘adequate’).Primary outcome measuresPresence and length of essential elements of trial design and reporting and compression factor (ratio of page length for CSRs compared to its published counterpart in a scientific journal).Data extractionData were extracted on standard forms and crosschecked for accuracy.ResultsWe assembled a population of 78 CSRs (covering 90 randomised controlled trials; 144 610 pages total) dated 1991–2011 of 14 pharmaceuticals. Report synopses had a median length of 5 pages, efficacy evaluation 13.5 pages, safety evaluation 17 pages, attached tables 337 pages, trial protocol 62 pages, statistical analysis plan 15 pages and individual efficacy and safety listings had a median length of 447 and 109.5 pages, respectively. While 16 (21%) of CSRs contained completed case report forms, these were accessible to us in only one case (765 pages representing 16 individuals). Compression factors ranged between 1 and 8805.ConclusionsClinical study reports represent a hitherto mostly hidden and untapped source of detailed and exhaustive data on each trial. They should be consulted by independent parties interested in a detailed record of a clinical trial, and should form the basic unit for evidence synthesis as their use is likely to minimise the problem of reporting bias. We cannot say whether our sample is representative and whether our conclusions are generalisable to an undefined and undefinable population of CSRs.

What is a ‘complex systematic review’? Criteria, definition, and examples

“…This could include, for example, clinical study reports (CSRs), large and highly detailed documents written for regulators as part of licensing applications for medicinal products 15. However, we are not proposing an arbitrary cut-off for what would constitute a large quantity of data.…”

Most systematic reviews of adverse effects did not include unpublished data

“…Clinical Study Reports (CSRs) are increasingly being discussed as an important source of data for adverse events in systematic reviews that are not available elsewhere (including published articles or publically available unpublished studies) (20,(33)(34)(35)(36). Starting from September 2016 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) intends to provide access to clinical trial data -60 days after a decision on an application for approval of a new drug has been made.…”

Commentary on Cochrane review of neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children

“…CSRs are extensive documents reporting on clinical trials used to obtain regulatory approval [5]. Roche (Basel, Switzerland) did this in response to the 2009 Cochrane review of adults documenting that the majority of oseltamivir data had never been published and media reporting indicating that at least one major published trial was ghost-written [7].…”