This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration and outcome reporting compliance in core headache medicine journals.
Methods: We identified RCTs published in core journals (Headache, Cephalalgia, and the Journal of Headache and Pain) from 2005 through 2014. We searched articles for trial registration numbers, which were verified in the corresponding trial registry. We categorized trial funding sources as industry, academic, government, or mixed. We contacted corresponding authors to assess reasons for nonregistration. We evaluated whether primary outcomes in trial registries matched those in corresponding publications.
Results: The journals published 225 RCTs over the study period. Fifty-eight of 225 (26%) reported a trial registration number in the article that could be linked to a corresponding registry entry. Trial registration rates increased over the 9 years of the study. Forty-six of 118 (39%) of industry-funded studies were registered compared with 27% of academic and 0% of government-funded studies. Only 5% of RCTs were prospectively registered, reported primary outcomes identical to those in the trial registry, and did not report unacknowledged post hoc outcomes. The most common reason for nonregistration was lack of awareness.
Conclusions: Only about a quarter of the articles published in the core headache medicine journals are compliant with trial registration, but compliance has increased over time. Selective reporting of outcomes remains a problem, and very few trials met all 3 reporting standards assessed in this study. Efforts to improve the quality of trial reporting in the headache literature should continue.
GLOSSARY
- ICMJE=
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors;
- RCT=
- randomized controlled trial
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Supplemental data at Neurology.org
Editorial, page 1734
- Received April 14, 2015.
- Accepted in final form June 23, 2015.
- © 2015 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
