RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Published registered reports are rare, limited to one journal group and inadequate for randomized controlled trials in the clinical field
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.08.02.22278318
DO 10.1101/2022.08.02.22278318
A1 Anthony, Norah
A1 Tisseaux, Antoine
A1 Naudet, Florian
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/03/2022.08.02.22278318.abstract
AB Objective Registered reports relate to a new publication of a peer-review of the protocol before the start of the study, followed by an in-principle acceptance by the journal before the study starts. We aimed to describe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the clinical field published as registered reports.Study design and setting This cross-sectional study (registration: https://osf.io/zf53p/) included registered report results for RCTs, identified on PubMed/Medline and on a list compiled by the Center for Open Science. It explored the proportion of reports that received in-principle acceptance (and/or published a protocol before inclusion of the first patient) and changes in the primary outcome.Results A total of 93 RCT publications identified as registered reports were included. All but one were published in the same journal group. The date of the in-principle acceptance was never documented. For most of these reports (79/93, 84.9 %) a protocol was published after the date of inclusion of the first patient. A change in the primary outcome was noted in 40/93 (44%) of these publications. Three out of the 40 (33%) mentioned this change.Conclusions Randomized controlled trials in the clinical field identified as registered reports were rare, they originated from a single journal group and did not comply with the basic features of this format.Protocol registration https://osf.io/zf53p/What is new ?The registered report format for clinical randomized controlled (RCTs) trials is still marginal and few journals make use of it.The clinical RCTs identified as registered reports were from a single journal group and did not necessarily comply with the basic features of this format, and common biases may thus persist.To improve research trustworthiness, more efforts need to be made by Journal publishers, trial funders, etc. for the implementation of this format for clinical RCTs.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/zf53p/ Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at Pubmed and the following Zotero library compiled by the Center for Open Science: https://bit.ly/2pJRYz3I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced are available online at https://osf.io/zf53p/