Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Speich, B., Gloy, V.L., Klatte, K., Gryaznov, D., Taji Heravi, A., Ghosh, N., Marian, I.R., Lee, H., Mansouri, A., Lohner, S., Saccilotto, R., Nury, E., Chan, A.-W., Blümle, A., Odutayo, A., Hopewell, S., & Briel, M. (2021). Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), e2128898. "
Appraisal of: "Speich, B., Gloy, V.L., Klatte, K., Gryaznov, D., Taji Heravi, A., Ghosh, N., Marian, I.R., Lee, H., Mansouri, A., Lohner, S., Saccilotto, R., Nury, E., Chan, A.-W., Blümle, A., Odutayo, A., Hopewell, S., & Briel, M. (2021). Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), e2128898. "
Reviewer(s):
Alan Lovell
Sophie Robinson
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Speich, B., et al. (2021). Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), e2128898. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28898.
Short description:
This systematic review assessed the consistency of key trial characteristics across multiple clinical trial registries for 197 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved in 2012 in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany. The authors compared data such as sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, sample size, trial status, and results availability across registries including ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT, ISRCTN, and others. Data were extracted in duplicate and analysed descriptively.
Findings revealed substantial inconsistencies: while sponsor and funding source showed high agreement (90%), primary outcome agreement was 78%, trial status 46%, and sample size 63%. Only 2% of trials had identical enrolment dates across registries. Interviews with registry representatives highlighted legal and procedural differences as barriers to harmonization. The study concludes that registry data are often unreliable, undermining their utility for transparency and bias detection.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
Sample skewed toward multicentre, industry-sponsored trials, limiting generalizability.
Registry entries were assessed at a single time point, not accounting for previous entries or later updates.
Country-specific data entries may have contributed to discrepancies.
Limited ability to assess which registry was most accurate.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
The reliance on descriptive statistics may obscure nuanced patterns in registry discrepancies.
The study could benefit from broader international representation beyond the selected countries.
The study does not examine whether single centre trials might perform better.
Study Type:
Systematic Review
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Page updated
Report abuse