Abstract
Background Prospectively registering study plans in a permanent time-stamped and publicly accessible document is becoming more common across disciplines and aims to improve the trustworthiness of research findings. Selective reporting persists, however, when researchers deviate from their registered plans without disclosure. This systematic review aims to estimate the prevalence of undisclosed discrepancies between prospectively registered study plans and their associated publication. We further aim to identify the research disciplines where these discrepancies have been observed, whether interventions to reduce discrepancies have been conducted, and gaps in the literature.
Methods On 15 December 2019, we searched Scopus and Web of Knowledge for articles that included quantitative data about discrepancies between registrations or study protocols and their associated publications. We used random-effects meta-analyses to synthesize the results.
Results We reviewed k = 89 articles, including k = 70 that report on primary outcome discrepancies from n = 6314 studies and, k = 22 that report on secondary outcome discrepancies from n = 1436 studies. Meta-analyses indicate that between 10% to 68% (95% prediction interval) of studies contain at least one primary outcome discrepancy and between 13% to 95% (95% prediction interval) contain at least one secondary outcome discrepancy. Almost all articles assessed clinical literature, and there was considerable heterogeneity, resulting in wide prediction intervals. We identified only one article that attempted to correct discrepancies.
Discussion Many 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 of undisclosed discrepancies between prospectively registered study plans and their associated publications. Discrepancies are common and reduce the trustworthiness of medical research. Interventions to reduce discrepancies could prove valuable.
Registration osf.io/ktmdg. Protocol amendments are listed in Supplementary Material A.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have a current interest in improving research practice and quality. Our prior belief that discrepancies between registrations and publications are common, and that they reduce the trustworthiness of research, motivated the conception of this review.
Clinical Trial
osf.io/ktmdg
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
Robert Thibault is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec. Hugo Pedder was funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Marcus Munafo, Robert Thibault, Jacqueline Thompson, and Robbie Clark are part of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/7). Robbie Clark is supported by a SWDTP ESRC +3 PhD studentship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
NA. This is a systematic review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
(a contributorship statement is included before the references)
There was an error in the authorship list, which is now corrected. No other changes have been made to the manuscript since the first version uploaded to medRxiv.
Data Availability
All data and analysis code will be openly shared on the University of Bristol Data Repository upon acceptance for publication. Before acceptance, these documents will be available at https://osf.io/5gfty/
