Identification of additional trials in prospective trial registers for cochrane systematic reviews

Background

Publication and selective outcome reporting bias are a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Extensive searching for additional trials in prospective trial registers could reduce this problem. We have evaluated how authors of Cochrane systematic reviews currently make use of trial registers as an additional source for the identification of potentially eligible trials.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We included 210 systematic Cochrane reviews of interventions published between 2008 and 2010 of which the protocol was first published in 2008. When prospective trial registers were searched we recorded the names of the register(s), the authors'' motive(s) and if they yielded any extra trials.In 80 reviews (38.1%) the authors had searched in one or more prospective trial register(s) of which 55% had searched in overlapping search portals and individual registers. Most frequently assessed were the MetaRegister (66.3%) and Clinicaltrials.gov (60%) which is in sharp contrast of other registers or portals like the WHO ICTRP Search Portal (20%). Reported motives to use registers were to identify ongoing trials (83.3%), to identify unpublished outcomes or trials (23.5%), to identify recently published trials (11.8%), or to identify any relevant trial (3.9%).In 28 reviews (35%) the authors had selected (ongoing) trials identified in trial registers as potentially eligible.

Discussion

Trial registers as an additional source of information are gaining acknowledgement amongst Cochrane reviewers. Nevertheless, searches seem to be inefficient as overlapping databases are frequently consulted, while the WHO ICTRP Search Portal that includes the data from all approved registers worldwide is being underused. Moreover, the emphasis is now on the identification of ongoing trials, although the prospective registers offer a broader potential. Further familiarity of registers and guidance how to search and to report will help to implement this as a common method and utilize the full potential of prospective trial registers for systematic reviews.     

Informed consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether the participants in a clinical trial had perceived adequate information about the trial according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. DESIGN--About 18 months after the end of a gynaecological clinical trial the participants received a questionnaire by post, which focused on the quality of the information given to them before entering the trial. Neither researchers nor participants were aware in advance that the trial would become the subject of this follow up investigation. SETTING--Eight different centres in Sweden. SUBJECTS--43 women out of the 53 who completed the trial (mean (range) age 23 (16 to 35) years) returned the questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Adequacy of the information (based on requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki) to enable the following: understanding of the aims of the study; awareness of what participation meant; and awareness of the possibility of withdrawing from participation at any time. Motives for agreeing to participate, and a subjective evaluation of the given information were also recorded. RESULTS--All but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a research project. Five women stated that they had not been aware that a second laparoscopy was performed only for research reasons. Seven women reported that they had not been aware of the meaning of participating in the project and 17 that they had had no information about the possibility of withdrawing from the study whenever they wanted. In the subjective rating 22 women considered the information given as good or very good. There was a systematic variation in the quality of the given information among the eight centres. CONCLUSION--Although all but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a clinical trial, the quality of the information understood and recalled by participants varied, and in many cases clearly did not meet the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Variations among centres in participants'' perception of information suggest that deficiencies in perception may be caused by informers rather than the participants.     

Minimum reporting standards for plant biology context information in metabolomic studies

Plant metabolomics has matured over the past 8 years. Plant biologists routinely use comprehensive analyses of plant metabolites to discover new responses to genetic or environmental perturbation, or to validate initial hypotheses on the function and in vivo action of gene products. The wealth of scientific findings has increasingly provoked interest to share and review raw or processed data from plant metabolomics reports. We here suggest a minimum of parameters to be reported in order to define details of experimental study designs in plant metabolomics studies.