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
. 2017 Jun 1;12(6):e0178379.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178379. eCollection 2017.

Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review

Cole Wayant  1 , Caleb Scheckel  2 , Chandler Hicks  1 , Timothy Nissen  1 , Linda Leduc  3 , Mousumi Som  3 , Matt Vassar  1
Affiliations

Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review

Cole Wayant et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Introduction: Selective reporting bias occurs when chance or selective outcome reporting rather than the intervention contributes to group differences. The prevailing concern about selective reporting bias is the possibility of results being modified towards specific conclusions. In this study, we evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in hematology journals, a group in which selective outcome reporting has not yet been explored.

Methods: Our primary goal was to examine discrepancies between the reported primary and secondary outcomes in registered and published RCTs concerning hematological malignancies reported in hematology journals with a high impact factor. The secondary goals were to address whether outcome reporting discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes, whether a pattern existed between the funding source and likelihood of outcome reporting bias, and whether temporal trends were present in outcome reporting bias. For trials with major outcome discrepancies, we contacted trialists to determine reasons for these discrepancies. Trials published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 in Blood; British Journal of Haematology; American Journal of Hematology; Leukemia; and Haematologica were included.

Results: Of 499 RCTs screened, 109 RCTs were included. Our analysis revealed 118 major discrepancies and 629 total discrepancies. Among the 118 discrepancies, 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were demoted, 47 (39.8%) primary outcomes were omitted, and 30 (25.4%) primary outcomes were added. Three (2.5%) secondary outcomes were upgraded to a primary outcome. The timing of assessment for a primary outcome changed eight (6.8%) times. Thirty-one major discrepancies were published with a P-value and twenty-five (80.6%) favored statistical significance. A majority of authors whom we contacted cited a pre-planned subgroup analysis as a reason for outcome changes.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that outcome changes occur frequently in hematology trials. Because RCTs ultimately underpin clinical judgment and guide policy implementation, selective reporting could pose a threat to medical decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Details regarding exclusions at each level of analysis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med. 2014;11(6):e1001666 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Oliveira GS Jr., Jung MJ, McCarthy RJ. Discrepancies Between Randomized Controlled Trial Registry Entries and Content of Corresponding Manuscripts Reported in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(4):1030–3. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000824 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rasmussen N, Lee K, Bero L. Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs. Trials. 2009;10:116 10.1186/1745-6215-10-116 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Raghav KPS, Mahajan S, Yao JC, Hobbs BP, Berry DA, Pentz RD, et al. From Protocols to Publications: A Study in Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials in Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(31):3583–90. 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.4148 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jones CW, Keil LG, Holland WC, Caughey MC, Platts-Mills TF. Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2015;13:282 10.1186/s12916-015-0520-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources