Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

UNSPECIFIED (2002) Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 8 (3). pp. 353-359. ISSN 1356-1294

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives Within-study selective reporting is widely believed to exist, although to date there have been no empirical studies to assess the extent of the problem in clinical research. The present study aimed to examine this process. Methods We undertook a pilot study, involving a single local research ethics committee (LREC), in which we compared the outcomes, analysis and sample size proposed in the original approved study protocol with the results presented in the subsequent study report. Results We received 41 (73%) replies from lead researchers of 56 projects, which were a complete cohort of clinical research applications approved in a particular time period by the LREC. Fifteen of these projects, which were completed and published at the time of our study, were further investigated. Only six (40%) stated which outcome variables were of primary interest and four (67%) of these showed consistency in the reports. Eight (53%) of the 15 studies mentioned an analysis plan. However, seven (88%) of these eight studies did not follow their prescribed analysis plan: the analysis of outcome variables or associations between certain variables were found to be missing from the report. Conclusions Our pilot study has shown that within-study selective reporting may be examined qualitatively by comparing the study report with the study protocol. Our results suggest that it might well be substantial; however, the bias can only be broadly identified as protocols are not sufficiently precise.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare
R Medicine
Journal or Publication Title: JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Publisher: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
ISSN: 1356-1294
Date: August 2002
Volume: 8
Number: 3
Number of Pages: 7
Page Range: pp. 353-359
Publication Status: Published
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/10677

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us