Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort

Van Driel, Mieke L., De Sutter, An, De Maeseneer, Jan and Christiaens, Thierry (2009) Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 8: 838-844. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.010


Author Van Driel, Mieke L.
De Sutter, An
De Maeseneer, Jan
Christiaens, Thierry
Title Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort
Journal name Journal of Clinical Epidemiology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0895-4356
1878-5921
Publication date 2009-08-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.010
Volume 62
Issue 8
Start page 838
End page 844
Total pages 7
Place of publication Philadelphia, PA, United States
Publisher Elsevier
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Objective: To assess the value of searching for unpublished data by exploring the extent to which Cochrane reviews include unpublished data and by evaluating the quality of unpublished trials.
Study Design and Setting: We screened all 2,462 completed Cochrane reviews published since 2000 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3, 2006. In a random sample (n = 61) of 292 reviews, including unpublished trials, we studied all 116 references.
Results: Unpublished trials make up 8.8% of all included trials in our sample. Thirty-eight percent of the “unpublished” trials have in fact been published. Allocation concealment was “unclear” or not adequate in 54.3% and 61.3% reported blinding. In 47.2% reported withdrawal rates were >20%. Trials that were eventually published had larger mean population sizes (P-value, 0.02). Of the reported sponsors, 87.3% were drug companies. Methodological quality and publication bias are mentioned in half of the reviews and explored in a third. Quality ratings did not have consequences for pooling, because 82.8% was included in the forest plots.
Conclusions: A minority of Cochrane reviews include “unpublished trials” and many of these are eventually published. Truly unpublished studies have poor or unclear methodological quality. Therefore, it may be better to invest in regular updating of reviews, rather than in extensive searching for unpublished data.
Keyword Systematic reviews
Bias
Publication bias
Methodology
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Discipline of General Practice Publications
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 33 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 33 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 15 May 2012, 08:24:20 EST by System User on behalf of Discipline of General Practice