|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full Text
Conclusions
Despite
the requirement for prospective registration of clinical trials in many
journals for the past ten years, this study is the first to show that a
large number of clinical trials were not prospectively registered.
The
lack of prospective registration identified in this study demonstrates
that more needs to be done to improve adherence to prospective
registration. It also highlights the importance of allowing
retrospective trial registration of studies that have not been
prospectively registered in order to prevent the non-publication of
potentially valuable research for which human participants have given up
their time and exposed themselves to risk.
The
results also suggest that there is a need for clear linkage of
published articles reporting clinical trials to their trial registry
records. This, along with the transparent inclusion of the date of
registration in the published article and clear indication in the trial
registry record when a trial has been registered retrospectively, will
increase transparency and ensure that readers are aware of whether a
clinical trial has been prospectively or retrospectively registered.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.