Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChong, Simon W-
dc.contributor.authorImberger, Georgina-
dc.contributor.authorKarahalios, Amalia-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Andrew-
dc.contributor.authorBurggraf, Millicent-
dc.contributor.authorLouis, Maleck-
dc.contributor.authorLiskaser, Grace M-
dc.contributor.authorBianco, Anthony-
dc.contributor.authorPeyton, Philip J-
dc.identifier.citationPloS one 2022; 17(7): e0270841en
dc.description.abstractMandatory prospective trial registration was introduced in 2005 to reduce publication bias and selective outcome reporting. In this study, we measured the proportion of prospective trial registration in randomized controlled trials in the anesthesia literature after this introduction, discrepancies between these trial protocols and subsequent publications, the association between being prospectively registered and reporting positive or negative results, and between being prospectively registered and achieving publication. We reviewed all abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meetings between 2010-2016 and included randomized controlled trials in humans. The abstract conclusions were scored as positive or negative according to predetermined definitions. We conducted a systematic search for trial registration and subsequent publication. Of the 9789 abstracts reviewed, 1070 abstracts were included. 222 (21%) of these abstracts had undergone prospective trial registration. 168/222 (76%) had a corresponding journal publication. 81(48%) had a major discrepancy between registration and publication. 149 (67%) of the abstracts with registration had positive outcomes compared with 616 (73%) of those without (Odds Ratio 0.77; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.06; P = 0.105). Abstracts that had been registered were more likely to proceed to publication than those that had not (Odds Ratio 3.82; 95% CI 2.73 to 5.35; P < 0.001). The proportion of randomized controlled trials being prospectively registered in anesthesia remains low. Discrepancies between registry entries and corresponding journal publications are common. There was no association between prospective trial registration and subsequent positive outcomes. There was a strong association between prospective trial registration and the likelihood of progression to journal publication.en
dc.titleTrial registration of abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Meetings 2010-2016: A review of prospective trial registration and selective outcome reporting.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitlePloS oneen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Anaesthesia, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Western Health, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Critical Care, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.pubmedid35788577-, Maleck
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone- for Breathing and Sleep-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on Oct 1, 2023

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.