Consistency between trials presented at conferences, their subsequent publications and press releases

• Authors: Joshua Wallach, Emory University; Anisa Rowhani-Farid, University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB); Kyungwan Hong, University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB); Mikas Grewal, Yale School of Medicine; Jesse Reynolds, Yale University; Audrey D Zhang, Duke University School of Medicine; Joseph S Ross, Yale School of Medicine
• Journal Title: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
• Volume: Volume 28, Number 2
• Publisher: BMJ | 2023-04-01, Pages 95-102
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111989
• Subjects: Biology, Biostatistics; Health Sciences, Epidemiology
• Keywords: evidence-based practice; health services research; policy; Humans; Cross-Sectional Studies; Logistic Models; Research Design; Research Report; Sample Size; Health Services Research; Evidence-Based Practice

Abstract

Objective This study examined the extent to which trials presented at major international medical conferences in 2016 consistently reported their study design, end points and results across conference abstracts, published article abstracts and press releases. Design Cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences in the USA in 2016. Conferences were identified from a list of the largest clinical research meetings aggregated by the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association and were included if their abstracts were publicly available. From these conferences, all late-breaker clinical trials were included, as well as a random selection of all other clinical trials, such that the total sample included up to 25 trial abstracts per conference. Main outcome measures First, it was determined if trials were registered and reported results in an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors-approved clinical trial registry. Second, it was determined if trial results were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Finally, information on trial media coverage and press releases was collected using LexisNexis. For all published trials, the consistency of reporting of the following characteristics was examined, through comparison of the trials' conference and publication abstracts: primary efficacy endpoint definition, safety endpoint identification, sample size, follow-up period, primary end point effect size and characterisation of trial results. For all published abstracts with press releases, the characterisation of trial results across conference abstracts, press releases and publications was compared. Authors determined consistency of reporting when identical information was presented across abstracts and press releases. Primary analyses were descriptive; secondary analyses included χ 2 tests and multiple logistic regression. Results Among 240 clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences, 208 (86.7%) were registered, 95 (39.6%) reported summary results in a registry and 177 (73.8%) were published; 82 (34.2%) were covered by the media and 68 (28.3%) had press releases. Among the 177 published trials, 171 (96.6%) reported the definition of primary efficacy endpoints consistently across conference and publication abstracts, whereas 96/128 (75.0%) consistently identified safety endpoints. There were 107/172 (62.2%) trials with consistent sample sizes across conference and publication abstracts, 101/137 (73.7%) that reported their follow-up periods consistently, 92/175 (52.6%) that described their effect sizes consistently and 157/175 (89.7%) that characterised their results consistently. Among the trials that were published and had press releases, 32/32 (100%) characterised their results consistently across conference abstracts, press releases and publication abstracts. No trial characteristics were associated with reporting primary efficacy end points consistently. Conclusions For clinical trials presented at major medical conferences, primary efficacy endpoint definitions were consistently reported and results were consistently characterised across conference abstracts, registry entries and publication abstracts; consistency rates were lower for sample sizes, follow-up periods, and effect size estimates. Registration This study was registered at the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VGXZY).