Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses

Abstract

ObjectivesProspectively registering study plans in a permanent time-stamped and publicly accessible document is becoming more common across disciplines and aims to reduce risk of bias and make risk of bias transparent. Selective reporting persists, however, when researchers deviate from their registered plans without disclosure. This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of undisclosed discrepancies between prospectively registered study plans and their associated publication. We further aimed to identify the research disciplines where these discrepancies have been observed, whether interventions to reduce discrepancies have been conducted, and gaps in the literature.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesScopus and Web of Knowledge, published up to 15 December 2019.Eligibility criteriaArticles that included quantitative data about discrepancies between registrations or study protocols and their associated publications.Data extraction and synthesisEach included article was independently coded by two reviewers using a coding form designed for this review (osf.io/728ys). We used random-effects meta-analyses to synthesise the results.ResultsWe reviewed k=89 articles, which included k=70 that reported on primary outcome discrepancies from n=6314 studies and, k=22 that reported on secondary outcome discrepancies from n=1436 studies. Meta-analyses indicated that between 29% and 37% (95% CI) of studies contained at least one primary outcome discrepancy and between 50% and 75% (95% CI) contained at least one secondary outcome discrepancy. Almost all articles assessed clinical literature, and there was considerable heterogeneity. We identified only one article that attempted to correct discrepancies.ConclusionsMany articles did not include information on whether discrepancies were disclosed, which version of a registration they compared publications to and whether the registration was prospective. Thus, our estimates represent discrepancies broadly, rather than our target ofundiscloseddiscrepancies betweenprospectivelyregistered study plans and their associated publications. Discrepancies are common and reduce the trustworthiness of medical research. Interventions to reduce discrepancies could prove valuable.Registrationosf.io/ktmdg. Protocol amendments are listed in online supplemental material A.