Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology

Aro, Tareq; Koo, Kevin; Matlaga, Brian R.

doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02914-4

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, 23% of reviews considering randomised (or randomised and non‐randomised studies) as eligible for inclusion conducted a search of a trials register. The equivalent percentage observed in other studies ranges from 6% to 35% 7–11,13–16,24 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Trials register searching has been reported as 6% in neurology reviews, 7% in orthopaedics surgery reviews, 11% in dermatology reviews, 12% in anaesthesiology reviews, 17% in general urology reviews, 18% in obstetrics and gynaecology reviews, 13%-25% in surgery reviews, and 20% in emergency medicine reviews. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]16 On the other hand, Berber et al conducted a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews from all Cochrane groups published through 1 February 2017 and found that over 90% of Cochrane authors search a trials register. 17 Only a few studies have evaluated how often additional trials are identified via searching trials registers, and the impact of including the new trials on meta-analysis results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Previous studies have indicated underutilization of searching trials registers in most medical systematic reviews. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] In a cross-sectional study of 117 systematic reviews that were published between 1 July 2012, and 30 June 2013, in six high impact medical journals, only 41 (35%) reviews reported searching a trials register. 15 This study and others have found the percentage of reviews searching trials registers varied from one medical specialty to another.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of searching clinical trials registers in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical and non‐pharmaceutical interventions: Reanalysis of meta‐analyses

Alqaidoom

Nguyen

Awadh

et al. 2022

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviewers are advised to search trials registers to minimise risk of reporting biases. However, there has been little research on the impact of searching trials registers on the results of meta-analyses. We aimed to evaluate the impact of searching clinical trials registers for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, and Education Collection for systematic reviews with meta-analyses indexed from 2 November to 2 December 2020. A random sample of systematic reviews was initially drawn, and for reviews which considered randomised trials eligible for inclusion, which had not searched a trials register, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT, ANZCTR, and the WHO ICTRP search portal for eligible trials. We compared meta-analytic effect estimates before and after including results from additional trials identified. We found additional trials for 63% (63/101) of eligible reviews; however, trials with results that could contribute to a metaanalysis were identified for only 20% (20/101) of the reviews. On average, there was no difference in the meta-analytic effect estimates before versus after adding the new trials. In summary, searching clinical trial registers led to identification of additional trials for many reviews; however, very few trials had results available for inclusion in meta-analyses. Including results from the new trials led to no change in the meta-analytic estimates, on average. Trials registers would be even more valuable to systematic reviewers if more trialists made use of them (i.e., registered their trials and posted results in a timely manner).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of searching clinical trials registers in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical and non‐pharmaceutical interventions: Reanalysis of meta‐analyses

Alqaidoom

Nguyen

Awadh

et al. 2022

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A reference search was conducted from included manuscripts. A search of trial registries identified currently ongoing studies [12]. Registries included: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where?

Perera

Lawrentschuk

et al. 2020

World J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Contemporary, original research should be utilised to inform guidelines in urology relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This comprehensive review aimed to: identify all up-to-date original publications relating to urology and COVID-19, characterise where publications were from, and outline what topics were investigated. Methods This review utilised a search strategy that assessed five electronic databases, additional grey literature, and global trial registries. All current published, in-press, and pre-print manuscripts were included. Eligible studies were required to be original research articles of any study design, reporting on COVID-19 or urology, in any of study population, intervention, comparison, or outcomes. Included studies were reported in a narrative synthesis format. Data were summarised according to primary reported outcome topic. A world heatmap was generated to represent where included studies originated from. Results Of the 6617 search results, 48 studies met final inclusion criteria, including 8 pre-prints and 7 ongoing studies from online registries. These studies originated from ten countries according to first author affiliation. Most studies originated from China (n = 13), followed by Italy (n = 12) and USA (n = 11). Topics of the study included pathophysiological, administrative, and clinical fields: translational (n = 14), COVID-19-related outcomes (n = 5), urology training (n = 4), telemedicine (n = 7), equipment and safety (n = 2), urology in general (n = 4), uro-oncology (n = 3), urolithiasis (n = 1), and kidney transplantation (n = 8). Conclusion This review has outlined available original research relevant to COVID-19 and urology from the international community. This summary may serve as a guide for future research priorities in this area.

show abstract

“…Yet, their validity relies on identification and inclusion of all relevant and available evidence, both published and unpublished. Unpublished studies, however, are often difficult and time consuming to identify, resulting in suboptimal attempts at retrieval or even complete omission from systematic reviews 34567. This incomplete inclusion is problematic given that only about half of all biomedical studies ever publish their results,8 and those that do, tend to yield more positive results and larger effect sizes than unpublished studies9 (phenomena known as publication bias and selective outcome reporting).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers

Hunter

Webster

Page

et al. 2022

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews should incorporate as much relevant evidence as possible to reduce bias and research waste and increase reliability of results. Clinical trials registers are a key resource for identifying potentially eligible studies, particularly those that are unpublished, and therefore searching these registers is mandated for best practice systematic reviews. However, the process of searching can be challenging and no clear and consistent guidance on how best to do this exists. This paper provides step-by-step guidance on how to conduct systematic searches for studies using clinical trials registers, with a case study to illustrate each step. The guidance encompasses where to search and how to formulate the search strategy, conduct the search, download results, screen records, obtain data, update searches, and report on these searches.

show abstract

Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Impact of searching clinical trials registers in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical and non‐pharmaceutical interventions: Reanalysis of meta‐analyses

Impact of searching clinical trials registers in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical and non‐pharmaceutical interventions: Reanalysis of meta‐analyses

Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where?

Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About