Challenges in identifying and quantifying country-level participation in multi-country randomised controlled trials involving Ireland as a collaborating partner
Larkin, J.; Alanza, U.; Raj Nagarajan, V.; Collins, M.; Termanini, S.; Farrington, E.; Clyne, B.; Fahey, T.; Moriarty, F.
Show abstract
Background and ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide vital information about healthcare interventions. Accurate reporting is vital for effective RCT dissemination. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of multi-country RCTs, using Ireland as a case study, examining trial characteristics, adherence to reporting standards and the reporting of participation from Ireland. Study Design and SettingThis is a secondary analysis of RCTs identified in a previous observational study of RCTs where [≥]80% of participants were recruited in Ireland. This current study focuses on multi-country RCTs with Ireland as a participating country. The current study involved an additional screening process according to these inclusion criteria: RCTs conducted on humans in a healthcare setting with centres based in Ireland, and <80% of participants recruited in Ireland. The primary outcome variables were trial characteristics and reporting rates for: trial registration, use of standardised reporting guidelines, number of Irish centres and number of participants recruited in Ireland. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. ResultsOverall, 239 RCTs were included. The most common intervention was a drug (74.9% of RCTs). The most common setting was an ambulatory setting (74.1% of RCTs). The most common clinical domain was the cardiovascular system (18.0% of RCTs). Among RCTs published after the CONSORT reporting guideline was published (1996), 8.3% referred to a standardised reporting guideline. Among RCTs published after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors mandated clinical trial registration (2005), 81.8% provided registration numbers. Number of Irish centres was reported in 75.3% (N=180) of RCTs. Number of participants recruited in Ireland was reported in 27.2% (N=65) of RCTs. ConclusionOur findings show deficits in reporting quality for multi-country RCTs, particularly in referring to reporting guidelines and reporting number of participants for the examined country. Institutions should create policies to ensure transparent RCT dissemination.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 96%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 96%
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 97%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 96%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 95%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 94%
- Number of Interventional Clinical Trials Registered per Million Population per Country Worldwide 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 94%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 94%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.