Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2019 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2019 Open Access

Trials 1/2019

Opportunities for selective reporting of harms in randomized clinical trials: Selection criteria for non-systematic adverse events

Zeitschrift:
Trials > Ausgabe 1/2019
Autoren:
Evan Mayo-Wilson, Nicole Fusco, Hwanhee Hong, Tianjing Li, Joseph K. Canner, Kay Dickersin
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13063-019-3581-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Joint first authors: Evan Mayo-Wilson and Nicole Fusco contributed equally to this paper.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

Background

Adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials or across sources for a single trial may produce inconsistent information about the adverse events associated with interventions.

Methods

We compared the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., “selection criteria”), including the number of different types of AEs reported (i.e., rather than the number of events). We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports (CSRs)) of trials for two drug-indications—gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. Electronic searches were completed in 2015. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting.

Results

We identified 21 gabapentin and 7 quetiapine trials. We found 6 gabapentin CSRs and 2 quetiapine CSRs, all written by drug manufacturers. All CSRs reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion “occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group,” while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion “occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group.”

Conclusions

Selection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might “cherry-pick” AEs based on results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems identified in this study.
Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Trials 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe