Impact of Searching Clinical Trials Registers in Systematic Reviews of Pharmaceutical and Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: Reanalysis of Meta-Analyses

Autor/inn/en	Alqaidoom, Zainab; Nguyen, Phi-Yen; Awadh, Maryam; Page, Matthew J.
Titel	Impact of Searching Clinical Trials Registers in Systematic Reviews of Pharmaceutical and Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: Reanalysis of Meta-Analyses
Quelle	In: Research Synthesis Methods, 14 (2023) 1, S.52-67 (16 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Alqaidoom, Zainab) ORCID (Page, Matthew J.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1759-2879
DOI	10.1002/jrsm.1583
Schlagwörter	Experimental Groups; Medical Research; Drug Therapy; Pharmacology; Meta Analysis; Online Searching; Intervention; Literature Reviews + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Arzneikunde; Meta-analysis; Metaanalyse; Online-Recherche
Abstract	Systematic reviewers are advised to search trials registers to minimise risk of reporting biases. However, there has been little research on the impact of searching trials registers on the results of meta-analyses. We aimed to evaluate the impact of searching clinical trials registers for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, and Education Collection for systematic reviews with meta-analyses indexed from 2 November to 2 December 2020. A random sample of systematic reviews was initially drawn, and for reviews which considered randomised trials eligible for inclusion, which had not searched a trials register, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT, ANZCTR, and the WHO ICTRP search portal for eligible trials. We compared meta-analytic effect estimates before and after including results from additional trials identified. We found additional trials for 63% (63/101) of eligible reviews; however, trials with results that could contribute to a meta-analysis were identified for only 20% (20/101) of the reviews. On average, there was no difference in the meta-analytic effect estimates before versus after adding the new trials. In summary, searching clinical trial registers led to identification of additional trials for many reviews; however, very few trials had results available for inclusion in meta-analyses. Including results from the new trials led to no change in the meta-analytic estimates, on average. Trials registers would be even more valuable to systematic reviewers if more trialists made use of them (i.e., registered their trials and posted results in a timely manner). (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01