Outcome Reporting bias in Exercise Oncology trials (OREO): a cross-sectional study

  title={Outcome Reporting bias in Exercise Oncology trials (OREO): a cross-sectional study},
  author={B. B. Singh and Ciaran M. Fairman and Jesper Frank Christensen and Kate A Bolam and Rosie Twomey and David Nunan and Ian M. Lahart},
Background: Despite evidence of selective outcome reporting across multiple disciplines, this has not yet been assessed in trials studying the effects of exercise in people with cancer. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to explore prospectively registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in exercise oncology for evidence of selective outcome reporting. Methods: Eligible trials were RCTs that 1) investigated the effects of at least partially supervised exercise interventions in people… 
The Nature of Our Literature : A Registered Report on the Positive Result Rate and Reporting Practices in Kinesiology
1Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 2Department of Kinesiology, California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA. 3Centre of Applied Science for Health,
Cancer catecholamine conundrum.
Variable effects of catecholamines in cancer can potentially be explained by variable expression of nine adrenergic receptor isoforms and by other factors includingcatecholamine effects on cancer versus immune or endothelial cells.


Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.
Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent.
Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review
Consistent reporting of prospectively defined outcomes and consistent utilization of registry data during the peer review process may improve the validity of clinical trial publications.
Comparison of Registered and Reported Outcomes in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Anesthesiology Journals
Among adequately registered trials, there are high rates of discrepancies between registered and reported outcomes, suggesting a need to compare a published RCT with its trial registry entry to be able to fully assess the quality of the study.
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Whether outcome reporting bias would be present in a cohort of government-funded trials subjected to rigorous peer review and whether primary outcomes specified in trial protocols were compared with those reported in publications is compared.
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols and Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention.
Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis
Assessment ofORB within a systematic review of a single primary outcome underestimates the risk of ORB in comparison to the assessment of multiple primary and secondary outcomes, suggesting a core outcome set for trials and systematic reviews in cystic fibrosis could be reduced.
The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews
Outcome reporting bias is an under-recognised problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane reviews and individuals conducting systematic reviews need to address explicitly the issue of missing outcome data for their review to be considered a reliable source of evidence.
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported.
Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review
Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy.
A systematic literature search found that among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published, and the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall.