Consistency between trials presented at conferences, their subsequent publications and press releases

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study examined the extent to which trials presented at major international medical conferences in 2016 consistently reported their study design, end points and results across conference abstracts, published article abstracts and press releases.DesignCross-sectional analysis of clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences in the USA in 2016. Conferences were identified from a list of the largest clinical research meetings aggregated by the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association and were included if their abstracts were publicly available. From these conferences, all late-breaker clinical trials were included, as well as a random selection of all other clinical trials, such that the total sample included up to 25 trial abstracts per conference.Main outcome measuresFirst, it was determined if trials were registered and reported results in an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors-approved clinical trial registry. Second, it was determined if trial results were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Finally, information on trial media coverage and press releases was collected using LexisNexis. For all published trials, the consistency of reporting of the following characteristics was examined, through comparison of the trials’ conference and publication abstracts: primary efficacy endpoint definition, safety endpoint identification, sample size, follow-up period, primary end point effect size and characterisation of trial results. For all published abstracts with press releases, the characterisation of trial results across conference abstracts, press releases and publications was compared. Authors determined consistency of reporting when identical information was presented across abstracts and press releases. Primary analyses were descriptive; secondary analyses included χ2tests and multiple logistic regression.ResultsAmong 240 clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences, 208 (86.7%) were registered, 95 (39.6%) reported summary results in a registry and 177 (73.8%) were published; 82 (34.2%) were covered by the media and 68 (28.3%) had press releases. Among the 177 published trials, 171 (96.6%) reported the definition of primary efficacy endpoints consistently across conference and publication abstracts, whereas 96/128 (75.0%) consistently identified safety endpoints. There were 107/172 (62.2%) trials with consistent sample sizes across conference and publication abstracts, 101/137 (73.7%) that reported their follow-up periods consistently, 92/175 (52.6%) that described their effect sizes consistently and 157/175 (89.7%) that characterised their results consistently. Among the trials that were published and had press releases, 32/32 (100%) characterised their results consistently across conference abstracts, press releases and publication abstracts. No trial characteristics were associated with reporting primary efficacy end points consistently.ConclusionsFor clinical trials presented at major medical conferences, primary efficacy endpoint definitions were consistently reported and results were consistently characterised across conference abstracts, registry entries and publication abstracts; consistency rates were lower for sample sizes, follow-up periods, and effect size estimates.RegistrationThis study was registered at the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VGXZY).

Reporting inconsistency between published conference abstracts and article abstracts of randomised controlled trials in prosthodontics presented at IADR general sessions

“…Therefore, authors are allowed to describe conference abstracts in detail according to CONSORT-A, whereas they may have to omit some items and details to meet the journal’s requirements. To ensure that conference submissions accurately report their studies, we recommend authors to present their abstracts closely following CONSORT (for RCTs), preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA, for meta-analyses), along with sharing their trials registration numbers, funding sources and other important informations ( Rowhani-Farid et al, 2023 ).…”

SEETrials: Leveraging Large Language Models for Safety and Efficacy Extraction in Oncology Clinical Trials

“…This discrepancy is significant, with more than 50% of outcomes from abstracts and nearly one-third of randomized trial results, initially introduced in conference abstracts, failing to advance to full publication, and this trend has not shown improvement over time [5]. Moreover, despite the recommendation to include conference abstracts in systematic literature reviews by both Cochrane and the United States National Academy of Sciences [6], concerns persist regarding the unclear impact of unpublished conference abstracts on the final conclusions [7] and inconsistency between conference abstracts and papers in reporting results [8][9][10]. Given these various benefits and concerns, a complete and thorough systematic review requires clinical outcomes to be extracted not only from published articles but also from all conference abstracts.…”

Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads

“…We have accumulated a large body of empirical evidence on how systems function and how they can malfunction. There is also growing evidence on how to make peer review, publication, and dissemination processes more efficient, fair, open, transparent, reliable, and equitable . Experimental randomized evaluations of peer review practices are only a small part of the literature, but their numbers have been growing since the early trials of anonymized peer review .…”