Skip to main content
main-content

14.09.2017 | REVIEW | Ausgabe 6/2017

Investigational New Drugs 6/2017

Comparison of reporting phase I trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov and matched publications

Zeitschrift:
Investigational New Drugs > Ausgabe 6/2017
Autoren:
D. Shepshelovich, H. Goldvaser, L. Wang, A. R. Abdul Razak, P. L. Bedard
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10637-017-0510-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary

Background Data on completeness of reporting of phase I cancer clinical trials in publications are lacking. Methods The ClinicalTrials.​gov database was searched for completed adult phase I cancer trials with reported results. PubMed was searched for matching primary publications published prior to November 1, 2016. Reporting in primary publications was compared with the ClinicalTrials.​gov database using a 28-point score (2=complete; 1=partial; 0=no reporting) for 14 items related to study design, outcome measures and safety profile. Inconsistencies between primary publications and ClinicalTrials.​gov were recorded. Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with incomplete reporting. Results After a review of 583 trials in ClinicalTrials.​gov, 163 matching primary publications were identified. Publications reported outcomes that did not appear in ClinicalTrials.​gov in 25% of trials. Outcomes were upgraded, downgraded or omitted in publications in 47% of trials. The overall median reporting score was 23/28 (interquartile range 21–25). Incompletely reported items in >25% publications were: inclusion criteria (29%), primary outcome definition (26%), secondary outcome definitions (53%), adverse events (71%), serious adverse events (80%) and dates of study start and database lock (91%). Higher reporting scores were associated with phase I (vs phase I/II) trials (p<0.001), multicenter trials (p<0.001) and publication in journals with lower impact factor (p=0.004). Conclusions Reported results in primary publications for early phase cancer trials are frequently inconsistent or incomplete compared with ClinicalTrials.​gov entries. ClinicalTrials.​gov may provide more comprehensive data from new cancer drug trials.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Zusatzmaterial
ESM 1 (XLSX 20 kb)
10637_2017_510_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx
ESM 2 (DOCX 15 kb)
10637_2017_510_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2017

Investigational New Drugs 6/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Onkologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise