Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Since September 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has required that trials be registered in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum dataset, in order to be considered for publication. The objective is to evaluate registries' and individual trial records' compliance with the 2006 version of the WHO minimum data set. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 21 online clinical trial registries (international, national, specialty, pharmaceutical industry and local) from April 2005 to February 2007 and a cross-sectional evaluation of a stratified random sample of 610 trial records from the 21 registries. RESULTS: Among 11 registries that provided guidelines for registration, the median compliance with the WHO criteria were 14 out of 20 items (range 6 to 20). In the period April 2005-February 2007, six registries increased their compliance by six data items, on average. None of the local registry websites published guidelines on the trial data items required for registration. Slightly more than half (330/610; 54.1%, 95% CI 50.1% - 58.1%) of trial records completed the contact details criteria while 29.7% (181/610, 95% CI 26.1% - 33.5%) completed the key clinical and methodological data fields. CONCLUSION: While the launch of the WHO minimum data set seemed to positively influence registries with better standardisation of approaches, individual registry entries are largely incomplete. Initiatives to ensure quality assurance of registries and trial data should be encouraged. Peer reviewers and editors should scrutinise clinical trial registration records to ensure consistency with WHO's core content requirements when considering trial-related publications.

[The future of clinical research: why do we need an ecological approach?]. / Le mète per un'ecologia della ricerca clinica.

In this paper we try to define the future goals of the clinical research, with particular reference to methodological and policy issues. There is an increasing tension between the real drivers of clinical research and its scientific and ethical aims. To consumers the goal is to strengthen the relevance and usefulness of clinical research. This is possible only if consumers are empowered and actively involved. For the health care systems it is mandatory to re-engineer the process, enforcing national and international legislation. This should help to fill the research-clinical practice gap and to balance the research agenda, better reflecting health priorities. Finally the scientific community should reflect on its own conflicts of interests and analyse the causes of the ethical divide between the needs and the market. Scientists too often seem to loose sight of the original cumulative nature of research and of the idea of research as a collective good. More non-commercial research is needed, integrated with the health care systems, to support a transparent, more realistic and valid information useful for patient care, scientific information.

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals. STUDY SELECTION: 965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002. DATA SYNTHESIS: The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.