↓ Skip to main content

Reporting of statistically significant results at ClinicalTrials.gov for completed superiority randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reporting of statistically significant results at ClinicalTrials.gov for completed superiority randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0740-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnes Dechartres, Elizabeth G. Bond, Jordan Scheer, Carolina Riveros, Ignacio Atal, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract

Publication bias and other reporting bias have been well documented for journal articles, but no study has evaluated the nature of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to assess how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov report statistically significant results and whether the proportion of trials with significant results differs when no treatment effect estimate or p-value is posted. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2015 for all studies with results posted. We included completed RCTs with a superiority hypothesis and considered results for the first primary outcome with results posted. For each trial, we assessed whether a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value was reported at ClinicalTrials.gov and if yes, whether results were statistically significant. If no treatment effect estimate or p-value was reported, we calculated the treatment effect and corresponding p-value using results per arm posted at ClinicalTrials.gov when sufficient data were reported. From the 17,536 studies with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 2823 completed phase 3 or 4 randomized trials with a superiority hypothesis. Of these, 1400 (50%) reported a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value. Results were statistically significant for 844 trials (60%), with a median p-value of 0.01 (Q1-Q3: 0.001-0.26). For the 1423 trials with no treatment effect estimate or p-value posted, we could calculate the treatment effect and corresponding p-value using results reported per arm for 929 (65%). For 494 trials (35%), p-values could not be calculated mainly because of insufficient reporting, censored data, or repeated measurements over time. For the 929 trials we could calculate p-values, we found statistically significant results for 342 (37%), with a median p-value of 0.19 (Q1-Q3: 0.005-0.59). Half of the trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov reported a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value, with significant results for 60% of these. p-values could be calculated from results reported per arm at ClinicalTrials.gov for only 65% of the other trials. The proportion of significant results was much lower for these trials, which suggests a selective posting of treatment effect estimates and/or p-values when results are statistically significant.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 26%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,248,568
of 24,619,747 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,487
of 3,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,296
of 425,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#42
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,619,747 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.