Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.

By S. Mathieu, I. Boutron, David Moher, Douglas G. Altman, Philippe Ravaud. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2009

691 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/880814cfcc89479c23b8200eb8e59873eccc2df3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research (2018, neutral): “29 While recent research in medicine finds that the clinical trial registry has not eliminated all under-reporting of null results or other forms of publication bias and specification searching (Laine et al. 2007; Mathieu et al. 2009), they do allow the research community to quantify the extent of t”
Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. (2010, background): “Sample size, median (IQR) [range] 84 (46-206) [4-6848]”
The secret lives of experiments: Methods reporting in the fMRI literature (2012, neutral): “Indeed, reviews of randomized clinical trials show that published articles are more likely to report significant than non-significant outcome measures—and that substantial fractions of published studies change measures and methods to increase statistical significance (Chan et al., 2004a,b; Mathieu e”
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). (2011, background): “Recent evidence has also emerged regarding the second, selective outcome reporting [3,4].”
On the Plurality of (Methodological) Worlds: Estimating the Analytic Flexibility of fMRI Experiments (2012, background): “Critically, these changes tend to make results appear more significant than they would have been under the original analysis plan (Chan et al., 2004a,b; Dwan et al., 2008; Mathieu et al., 2009).”
Positive Outcomes Influence the Rate and Time to Publication, but Not the Impact Factor of Publications of Clinical Trial Results (2013, methodology): “A possibility of mismatching and even misidentification of publication exists [20–25], although we believe we have partially overcome this problem by using multiple criteria to match publications with protocols.”