PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Hinkel, Jennifer
AU  - Heneghan, Carl
AU  - Bankhead, Clare
TI  - Selective Outcome Reporting in Cancer Studies: A Scoping Review
AID  - 10.1101/2024.07.02.24309826
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.07.02.24309826
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.07.02.24309826.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.07.02.24309826.full
AB  - Background Unbiased reporting of clinical study results is essential for evidence-based medicine. However, Selective Outcome Reporting (SOR) leads to Outcome Reporting Bias (ORB) and is prevalent across disease areas, including oncology. This scoping review aims to: (a) describe the current state of research on SOR in cancer studies, (b) assess the prevalence of SOR, (c) understand methods and definitions used in SOR assessment, (d) map available evidence and identify research gaps, and (e) discuss research and policy implications.Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using keywords related to endpoint discrepancies and oncology. Studies were screened, deduplicated, and evaluated. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis was used for quality assessment.Results Six systematic reviews, each including 24 to 217 cancer clinical trials, were analysed. SOR prevalence varied from 4% to 79%, with a median rate of 12%. Definitions of endpoint discrepancies varied, complicating direct comparisons. SOR was identified as over-reporting, under-reporting, or misreporting outcomes.Conclusion SOR is a significant issue in oncology clinical trials, with implications for evidence synthesis, clinical practice, and policy. The lack of consistent definitions and detailed protocol reporting contributes to the challenge. Enhancing transparency and standardisation in outcome reporting could mitigate ORB and improve the reliability of clinical evidence. Implications: Future research should focus on consistent SOR definitions and improved protocol transparency. Policymakers and regulators should promote standards to reduce SOR and ensure transparent and trustworthy clinical trial outcomes.Competing Interest StatementJH and CH declare no competing interests for this research. CH received funding support from the NIHR School of Primary Care Research and the NIHR.Clinical Protocols https://figshare.com/account/home#/projects/125815 Funding StatementThe authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author (Jennifer Hinkel). More information including the study protocol and data are available on the FigShare project page at https://figshare.com/account/home#/projects/125815. https://figshare.com/account/home#/projects/125815