Assessment of publication bias and selective outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials: Literature review in the rehabilitation field (Preprint)

Abstract

Publication and selective outcome reporting are difficult to evaluate and may mislead decision making when evidence from papers is employed.

To evaluate publication bias and the concordance rates between research protocols, as well as the primary outcomes of published papers to evaluate selective outcome reporting bias.

Protocols concerning related to rehabilitation were extracted from electronic databases and their contents. The search database was the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN), International Standard Research Clinical Trial Number (ISRCTN), ClinicalTrials.gov, and MEDLINE (PubMed) . The outcome of this study was the publication status of papers and consistent with the research protocol and the primary outcomes.

Of the 5,597 protocols, the publication rate was 727(13.0%). The rates of described primary outcomes were 48.7% and 72.6% in the abstract and main text, respectively.

This study showed a discrepancy between the number of research protocol registrations and the number of published papers.

Not applicable