Is our public research money well spent? Publication of research outputs from Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded studies: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting of results from the projects and programmes funded by the Health Research Council (HRC) New Zealand. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Research projects and programmes funded by the HRC New Zealand from 2006 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Publicly available data provided by the HRC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and proportion with evidence of publication and dissemination of a research output from HRC grants and the time taken to disseminate the results. RESULTS: Of the 374 HRC grants from 2006 to 2014, there was no evidence of publication or reporting of any research output for 48 studies (13%). Of the 326 (87%) grants with research outputs, there was a mean dissemination time of 4.73 years (SD 2.37). The total funding provided by the HRC was NZ$471 663 336, while the 48 grants with no evidence of dissemination represented NZ$47 095 727 (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen per cent of the HRC projects and programmes from 2006 to 2014 have not contributed to the healthcare evidence as their results remain unknown.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part two: fertility.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of fertility evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of The Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on fertility problems published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing CSRs. Unmatched trials were analyzed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: We exported 564 trials from the CGF specialized register and found that 115 (23%) of these could be included in an existing CSR if these were updated while 72 trials (14%) were not matched to any review topic, and from these, eight new Cochrane review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Traditional Chinese medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques'. CONCLUSION: This project found that 14% of fertility trials were 'unused' and from these we identified new review topics and identified those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for people with infertility.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part one: gynecology.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of gynecology evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of the Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on benign gynecological conditions, published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were analysed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: After exporting 740 trials from the CGF specialized register, we found that 192 (26%) could be included in an existing CSR if it was updated, whereas 230 trials (32%) were not matched to any review title, and from these, we developed 21 new review titles. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Plant and herbal extracts for symptoms of menopause'. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a third of the benign gynecology trials published in 2010 and 2011 had no associated CSR. After identifying new topics from unmatched trials, we developed new CSR titles. This study identified the gaps in the evidence for women with gynecological problems.

Maternal folic acid supplementation for the prevention of preeclampsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia is a significant contributor to maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Folic acid supplementation is recommended periconceptionally for the prevention of neural tube defects. Epidemiological evidence suggests that maternal folic acid supplementation may play a role in preventing other adverse birth outcomes. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy on risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension. METHODS: Multiple scientific databases and grey literature were searched for relevant studies. Studies were reviewed according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study characteristics were summarised and study quality was assessed. A meta-analysis of observational studies was conducted to examine the effect of maternal folic acid supplementation on preeclampsia risk. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of eight observational studies showed significantly lower odds of preeclampsia with folic acid supplementation in comparison to no folic acid supplementation: OR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.63, 0.98), with moderately high heterogeneity between studies. Subgroup analysis showed no significant subgroup difference between folic acid supplementation taken by itself, in comparison to folic acid taken in or alongside a multivitamin. CONCLUSION: Low level evidence is available for a modest association between maternal folic acid supplementation and reduction in preeclampsia risk. Future studies should differentiate between early and late onset and mild vs severe preeclampsia, and should control for relevant confounders including the presence of multivitamin supplements. The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015029310).

Clinical trial registration in fertility trials - a case for improvement?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence and source of prospectively and retrospectively registered and unregistered trials in fertility treatments? SUMMARY ANSWER: Trial registration is low and does not appear to be changing over the 5 years studied. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Trial registration is associated with lower risk of bias than in unregistered trials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register was searched on 5 November 2015 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to December 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible trials included randomised women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text, and written in English. Two reviewers independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 693 eligible RCTS, only 44% were registered trials. Of 309 registered trials, 21.7% were prospectively registered, 15.8% were registered within 6 months of first patient enrolment and 62.5% were retrospectively registered trials. Prospective trial registration by country varied from 0% to 100%. The highest frequency of prospective trial registration amongst the top 10 publishing countries was 31% in the Netherlands. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Only English language trials were included in this review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Prospective trial registration is still low. Journals, funders and ethics committees could have a greater role to increase trial registration. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: University of Auckland. No competing interests.

Clinical trial registration was not an indicator for low risk of bias.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of registered trials and to evaluate the risk of bias between registered and unregistered clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility Group's specialized register was searched on November 5, 2015, for randomized controlled trials published from 2010 to 2014. Studies were selected if they had randomized women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text and written in English. Two reviewers then independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors. RESULTS: Of 693 eligible randomized controlled trials, only 44% were found to be registered. Unregistered clinical trials had smaller sample sizes than registered trials (P < 0.001). A random subsample of 125 registered and 125 unregistered trials was assessed for risk of bias using five of the Cochrane Risk of Bias "domains." Registered and unregistered trials differed in their risk of bias for random sequence generation (P = 0.001), allocation concealment (P = 0.003), and selective reporting (P < 0.001) but not blinding or incomplete outcome data (P > 0.05) domains. Only 54 (43.2%) of the 125 registered trials were registered prospectively. This study has the following limitations. Only English language trials were included in this review. We were unable to obtain protocols for the unregistered trials and therefore were unable to assess the risk of bias in the selective reporting domain. CONCLUSIONS: All available trials should be included in systematic reviews and assessed for risk of bias as there are both registered trials with high risk of bias and unregistered trials with low risk of bias and by excluding unregistered trials more than half of the available evidence will be lost.

There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the consistency in risk of bias (RoB) judgments across Cochrane reviews for studies appearing in more than one Cochrane review in the field of subfertility. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We retrieved any study that had been used more than once in systematic reviews present on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the area of subfertility. We then retrieved the recorded RoB assessments for these studies and looked at the consistency of judgments made between different authoring teams on the same trials. RESULTS: From the 156 bias judgments that were completed by at least two separate groups of authors, 45% of these judgments differed. For the domains of random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data, there was reasonably high level of agreement (71% and 79%, respectively). However, for the domain of blinding, agreement was reached in only 35% of cases. CONCLUSION: This assessment of how consistently the RoB is being applied in Cochrane reviews has shown that, especially in some domains, there are large discrepancies in how RoB is being evaluated. Further work needs to be undertaken to improve the application of this tool.