Abstract
Objective Registered Reports is a new publication format that aims to strengthen the trustworthiness of research papers by reducing issues such as publication bias and outcome switching. It involves a peer review of the protocol before the start of the study followed by an in-principle acceptance by the journal before the study results are known. Because of the coherence of the requirements of this format with the confirmatory nature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we aimed to identify and describe RCTs published as Registered Reports.
Design Cross-sectional study
Setting PubMed/Medline and a Zotero library compiled by the Center for Open Science
Eligibility criteria Publications identified as Registered Reports reporting results of RCTs
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the proportion of reports that received an in-principle acceptance and/or published a protocol before inclusion of the first patient. A secondary outcome concerned information collected on changes in the primary outcome (in relation to the protocol).
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 8/93 reports (8.6%), a protocol was published in a journal before inclusion of the first patient. Missing dates prevented any checks for a further 6/93 reports. The remaining 79/93 (84.9 %) had a protocol published after the date of inclusion of the first patient. A change in the primary outcome in relation to the protocol was noted in 40/93 (44%) of these publications and 3/40 (33%) mentioned this change.
Conclusions Not only is therapeutic research lagging behind with regard to the implementation of registered reports, but its implementation to date has been far removed from the very idea of this new publication. format. Journals need to implement this new publication format correctly in order to increase trustworthiness of therapeutic research.
Protocol registration https://osf.io/zf53p/
What is new ?
The use of registered report format for randomized controlled trials is still marginal and few journals practice it.
Randomized controlled trials identified as registered reports did not necessarily respect basic features of this format and thus common bias may persist.
To improve research trustworthiness, more efforts need to be done by Journals, trials funders etc. regarding implementation of this format for randomized controlled trials.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
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:
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/2pJRYz3
I 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.
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
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos