Drug–drug interaction trials incompletely described drug interventions in ClinicalTrials.gov and published articles: an observational study

Jurić, Diana; Bolić, Adriana; Pranić, Shelly; Marušić, Ana

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.002

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We present a systematic review of k=895 6 14–101 articles that assessed a wide range of outcome discrepancies and non-outcome discrepancies across over n=7000 studies. To avoid confusion, this report consistently uses the terms studies to refer to the over n=7000 individual studies that were assessed , and the term article to refer to the k=89 articles that assessed these studies, and that we reviewed .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses

2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesProspectively registering study plans in a permanent time-stamped and publicly accessible document is becoming more common across disciplines and aims to reduce risk of bias and make risk of bias transparent. Selective reporting persists, however, when researchers deviate from their registered plans without disclosure. This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of undisclosed discrepancies between prospectively registered study plans and their associated publication. We further aimed to identify the research disciplines where these discrepancies have been observed, whether interventions to reduce discrepancies have been conducted, and gaps in the literature.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesScopus and Web of Knowledge, published up to 15 December 2019.Eligibility criteriaArticles that included quantitative data about discrepancies between registrations or study protocols and their associated publications.Data extraction and synthesisEach included article was independently coded by two reviewers using a coding form designed for this review (osf.io/728ys). We used random-effects meta-analyses to synthesise the results.ResultsWe reviewed k=89 articles, which included k=70 that reported on primary outcome discrepancies from n=6314 studies and, k=22 that reported on secondary outcome discrepancies from n=1436 studies. Meta-analyses indicated that between 29% and 37% (95% CI) of studies contained at least one primary outcome discrepancy and between 50% and 75% (95% CI) contained at least one secondary outcome discrepancy. Almost all articles assessed clinical literature, and there was considerable heterogeneity. We identified only one article that attempted to correct discrepancies.ConclusionsMany articles did not include information on whether discrepancies were disclosed, which version of a registration they compared publications to and whether the registration was prospective. Thus, our estimates represent discrepancies broadly, rather than our target ofundiscloseddiscrepancies betweenprospectivelyregistered study plans and their associated publications. Discrepancies are common and reduce the trustworthiness of medical research. Interventions to reduce discrepancies could prove valuable.Registrationosf.io/ktmdg. Protocol amendments are listed in online supplemental material A.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses

2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The task is to assign a numerical score to each pair of sentences to express their semantic similarity. The scores are arranged in order, ranging (6)…”

Section: Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Embedding words in a continuous semantic space has an important impact on many NLP tasks [4][5][6]. Mikolov et al [7] used word co-occurrence to train word vectors iteratively and proposed the Word2Vec model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Refining electronic medical records representation in manifold subspace

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Electronic medical records (EMR) contain detailed information about patient health. Developing an effective representation model is of great significance for the downstream applications of EMR. However, processing data directly is difficult because EMR data has such characteristics as incompleteness, unstructure and redundancy. Therefore, preprocess of the original data is the key step of EMR data mining. The classic distributed word representations ignore the geometric feature of the word vectors for the representation of EMR data, which often underestimate the similarities between similar words and overestimate the similarities between distant words. This results in word similarity obtained from embedding models being inconsistent with human judgment and much valuable medical information being lost. Results In this study, we propose a biomedical word embedding framework based on manifold subspace. Our proposed model first obtains the word vector representations of the EMR data, and then re-embeds the word vector in the manifold subspace. We develop an efficient optimization algorithm with neighborhood preserving embedding based on manifold optimization. To verify the algorithm presented in this study, we perform experiments on intrinsic evaluation and external classification tasks, and the experimental results demonstrate its advantages over other baseline methods. Conclusions Manifold learning subspace embedding can enhance the representation of distributed word representations in electronic medical record texts. Reduce the difficulty for researchers to process unstructured electronic medical record text data, which has certain biomedical research value.

show abstract

Genetic correlation between circulating cytokines and risk of three ophthalmic diseases: a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study

Zhang,

Fu,

Cai

et al. 2024

Human Molecular Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Pathogenesis and the associated risk factors of cataracts, glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) remain unclear. We aimed to investigate causal relationships between circulating cytokine levels and the development of these diseases. Patients and methods Genetic instrumental variables for circulating cytokines were derived from a genome-wide association study of 8293 European participants. Summary-level data for AMD, glaucoma, and senile cataract were obtained from the FinnGen database. The inverse variance weighted (IVW) was the main Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis method. The Cochran’s Q, MR-Egger regression, and MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier test were used for sensitivity analysis. Results Based on the IVW method, MR analysis demonstrated five circulating cytokines suggestively associated with AMD (SCGF-β, 1.099 [95%CI, 1.037–1.166], P = 0.002; SCF, 1.155 [95%CI, 1.015–1.315], P = 0.029; MCP-1, 1.103 [95%CI, 1.012–1.202], P = 0.026; IL-10, 1.102 [95%CI, 1.012–1.200], P = 0.025; eotaxin, 1.086 [95%CI, 1.002–1.176], P = 0.044), five suggestively linked with glaucoma (MCP-1, 0.945 [95%CI, 0.894–0.999], P = 0.047; IL1ra, 0.886 [95%CI, 0.809–0.969], P = 0.008; IL-1β, 0.866 [95%CI, 0.762–0.983], P = 0.027; IL-9, 0.908 [95%CI, 0.841–0.980], P = 0.014; IL2ra, 1.065 [95%CI, 1.004–1.130], P = 0.035), and four suggestively associated with senile cataract (TRAIL, 1.043 [95%CI, 1.009–1.077], P = 0.011; IL-16, 1.032 [95%CI, 1.001–1.064], P = 0.046; IL1ra, 0.942 [95%CI, 0.887–0.999], P = 0.047; FGF-basic, 1.144 [95%CI, 1.052–1.244], P = 0.002). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis results supported the above associations. Conclusion This study highlights the involvement of several circulating cytokines in the development ophthalmic diseases and holds potential as viable pharmacological targets for these diseases.

show abstract

Drug–drug interaction trials incompletely described drug interventions in ClinicalTrials.gov and published articles: an observational study

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses

Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses

Refining electronic medical records representation in manifold subspace

Genetic correlation between circulating cytokines and risk of three ophthalmic diseases: a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About