Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States

Abstract

BackgroundMany clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, “The Final Rule” (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a “University/Organization” in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis.ResultsEligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02–0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a “best case” scenario.ConclusionsBefore the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1042-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Trial registration as a safeguard against outcome reporting bias and spin? A case study of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture

“…After adequate registration with details of research objectives, inclusion/exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, sample size calculation, analysis plan, and methodological factors related with risk of bias, authors should be cautious not to misinterpret the data [51], and provide the publicly accessible trial registration number in the published article for readers in the correct manner. The academic organizations where authors are affiliated to should provide relevant policies and resources to register trials or may even penalize researchers for non-compliance [54]. Journal editors and peer reviewers subject to concern of not detecting spin completely [55] can be systematically trained and provided with proper checklists or tools [56].…”

Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…However, existing laws and policies may not be sufficient and novel interventions may be required to increase trial registration. Many organizations in the USA do not have policies, staff, or other resources needed to ensure their trials are registered and reported in a timely fashion [ 84 ]. Twenty stakeholders have recently affirmed that prospective registration is of critical importance and that they will implement policies with monitoring systems to improve registration and reporting of results.…”

A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of Reviews

“…Protocol registration is increasingly recommended in clinical trials [ 57 ] and SRs [ 34 ], but this study showed a low protocol enrollment of 38.3% (item 5). In a previous survey, only about one-fifth of SRs in physical therapy were registered, indicating that the enrollment rate was low [ 58 ].…”