Differences in Reporting of Analyses in Internal Company Documents Versus Published Trial Reports: Comparisons in Industry-Sponsored Trials in Off-Label Uses of Gabapentin

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorVedula, S. Swaroop
dc.contributor.authorLi, Tianjing
dc.contributor.authorDickersin, Kay
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-28T14:28:09Z
dc.date.available2014-03-28T14:28:09Z
dc.date.issued2013-01-29
dc.descriptionPMC3558476en_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Details about the type of analysis (e.g., intent to treat [ITT]) and definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in the analysis) are necessary for interpreting a clinical trial's findings. Our objective was to compare the description of types of analyses and criteria for including participants in the publication (i.e., what was reported) with descriptions in the corresponding internal company documents (i.e., what was planned and what was done). Trials were for off-label uses of gabapentin sponsored by Pfizer and Parke-Davis, and documents were obtained through litigation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: For each trial, we compared internal company documents (protocols, statistical analysis plans, and research reports, all unpublished), with publications. One author extracted data and another verified, with a third person verifying discordant items and a sample of the rest. Extracted data included the number of participants randomized and analyzed for efficacy, and types of analyses for efficacy and safety and their definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in each type of analysis). We identified 21 trials, 11 of which were published randomized controlled trials, and that provided the documents needed for planned comparisons. For three trials, there was disagreement on the number of randomized participants between the research report and publication. Seven types of efficacy analyses were described in the protocols, statistical analysis plans, and publications, including ITT and six others. The protocol or publication described ITT using six different definitions, resulting in frequent disagreements between the two documents (i.e., different numbers of participants were included in the analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Descriptions of analyses conducted did not agree between internal company documents and what was publicly reported. Internal company documents provide extensive documentation of methods planned and used, and trial findings, and should be publicly accessible. Reporting standards for randomized controlled trials should recommend transparent descriptions and definitions of analyses performed and which study participants are excluded.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipJH Libraries Open Access Funden_US
dc.identifier.citationdoi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001378en_US
dc.identifier.issn1549-1277
dc.identifier.urihttp://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36717
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherPLoS Organizationen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPLoS Med;vol. 10, no. 1 e1001378
dc.subjectgamma-Aminobutyric Aciden_US
dc.subjectResearch Reporten_US
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicen_US
dc.subjectPublishingen_US
dc.subjectOff-Label Useen_US
dc.subjectDrug Industryen_US
dc.subjectDocumentationen_US
dc.subjectCyclohexanecarboxylic Acidsen_US
dc.subjectAminesen_US
dc.titleDifferences in Reporting of Analyses in Internal Company Documents Versus Published Trial Reports: Comparisons in Industry-Sponsored Trials in Off-Label Uses of Gabapentinen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2013 Dickersin Differences In Reporting.pdf
Size:
183 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Research Article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.81 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
2012/2013 Recipients