Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prospectively 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.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES: Scopus and Web of Knowledge, published up to 15 December 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles that included quantitative data about discrepancies between registrations or study protocols and their associated publications.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Each 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.
RESULTS: We 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…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,314 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Regulation of nucleolus assembly by non-coding RNA polymerase II transcripts
- For a Healthy Histone Code, a Little SUMO in the Tail Keeps the Acetyl Away
- Discovering a binary CTCF code with a little help from BORIS
- Article Commentary: Stabilizing the Code–-Methods to Preserve RNA Prove Their Worth
- Foreword to the Special Issue for the RINTC (The Implicit Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures) Project
- Commentary: Promoting Health and Well-being in Pediatric Primary Care Settings: Using Health and Behavior Codes at Routine Well-child Visits
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.