Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Apr 5:342:d1828.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1828.

Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles

Anette Blümle  1 , Joerg J Meerpohl, Gerta Rücker, Gerd Antes, Martin Schumacher, Erik von Elm
Affiliations

Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles

Anette Blümle et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether and how eligibility criteria of participants prespecified in protocols of randomised trials are reported in subsequent articles.

Design: Cohort study.

Setting: Protocols submitted to the ethics committee of a German medical faculty.

Data sources: 52 trial protocols and 78 subsequent publications published between 2000 and 2006.

Main outcome measure: Proportion of matching, missing, modified, or newly added eligibility criteria between trial protocols and subsequent publications.

Results: Differences were found between protocols and subsequent publications for all 52 trials. Information on eligibility criteria was missing in the publications for all 52 trials (100%, 95% confidence interval 93% to 100%), modified for 44 (85%, 72% to 93%), and newly added for 21 (41%, 27% to 55%). The mean number of eligibility criteria for each trial was 25 (range 7-43) and the mean proportion of matching eligibility criteria per trial was 50% (95% confidence interval 44% to 55%, range 13-93). Of 1248 eligibility criteria prespecified in the protocols, 606 (49%, 46% to 51%) were matching in subsequent publications, 479 (38%, 36% to 41%) were missing, and 163 (13%, 11% to 15%) were modified. 51 eligibility criteria were added to publications. Most prespecified eligibility criteria were about comorbidity (42%, 39% to 45%), treatment (20%, 18% to 22%), or type or severity of illness (17%, 15% to 19%). Most of the missing eligibility criteria (96%, 94% to 97%) and modified eligibility criteria (54%, 46% to 62%) suggested broader study populations and most of the added eligibility criteria (86%, 74% to 94%) suggested narrower study populations.

Conclusions: Many users of trial information rely on published journal articles. These articles generally do not reflect the exact definition of the study population as prespecified in the protocol. Incomplete or inadequate reporting of eligibility criteria hampers a proper assessment of the applicability of trial results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: AB was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (EL 544/1-1); no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Number of matching, missing, modified, and added eligibility criteria (n=1299) for each content category
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000144. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e3081. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-65. - PubMed
    1. Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2009;302:977-84. - PubMed
    1. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336:1472-4. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types