Table 4 Significant factors reported to be related with inconsistency between protocols or registrations and full reports
First author, year | Main measures of comparison | Significant factors related with inconsistent reporting | Association between factors and inconsistent reporting |
|---|---|---|---|
Chan, 2004 [7] | Outcome reporting | Outcomes with statistically significant results | Higher odds of being fully reported in primary efficacy outcomes with significant results, compared with primary efficacy outcomes with nonsignificant results (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5–5.0) |
Chan, 2004 [7] | Outcome reporting | Outcomes with statistically significant results | Higher odds of being fully reported in primary efficacy outcomes with significant results, compared with primary efficacy outcomes with nonsignificant results (OR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.4–4.0); corresponding odds ratio for primary harm outcomes was 4.7 (95% CI: 1.8–12.0) |
Kasenda, 2014 [9] | Subgroup analysis | Study sponsorship | Subgroup analyses were more often planned in industry-sponsored trials, compared with investigator-sponsored trials (p < 0.001) |
Redmond, 2013 [34] | Outcome reporting | Outcomes with statistically significant results; Efficacy outcomes (vs harm outcomes); Cardiology (vs all specialties); Infectious diseases (vs all specialties) | Higher odds of inconsistent reporting found in outcomes with significant results (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.07–1.78), in efficacy outcomes compared with harm outcomes (OR = 2.99, 95% CI: 2.08–4.30), in Cardiology specialty (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.44–3.79), and in Infectious diseases (OR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.01–3.13) compared with all specialties combined. |