Reporting of the safety from allergic rhinitis trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and in publications: An observational study

13Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Incomplete and inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) through multiple sources can distort impressions of the overall safety of the medical interventions examined as well as the benefit-risk relationship. We aimed to assess completed allergic rhinitis (AR) trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov for completeness and consistency of AEs reporting comparing ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications. Methods: We retrospectively examined completed randomised controlled trials on AR registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on or after 9/27/2009 to trials updated with results on or before 12/31/2021 along with any corresponding publications. Complete reporting of AEs in ClinicalTrials.gov were summarised in tables describing AE information, and complete reporting in publications was an explicit statement of serious AE, death or other AE. Difference in completeness, number, or description of AEs between ClinicalTrials.gov and publication was classified as inconsistent reporting of AEs. Results: There were 99 registered trials with 45 (45.5%) available publications. All published trials completely reported AEs in ClinicalTrials.gov, and 21 (46.7%) in publications (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Paladin, I., & Pranić, S. M. (2022). Reporting of the safety from allergic rhinitis trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and in publications: An observational study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01730-6

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free