Abstract
BackgroundRegistration of research studies is designed to lock investigators into a data collection and analysis plan before a study starts and thereby limit their ability to engage in flexible data analysis and selective outcome reporting. Studies of registered clinical trials show that one- to two-thirds are registered after the study has started and that non-adherence to important design and analytic features, such as reporting data pertaining to all primary outcomes, remains high. Less is known about the effects of registration on research transparency and integrity outside of clinical trials. To address this gap in knowledge, the current study examined the effects of registration on the reporting of research findings in a sample of behavioral health trials published in BMC Public Health.MethodsRegistered trials published in the BMC Public Health section “Health Behavior, Health Promotion and Society” between 2011 and 2015 were included in the study. For each trial, we reviewed associated online submissions from 13 different registration sites. For those determined to have been prospectively registered, we used the trial registry, MEDLINE (Pubmed), PsychINFO, Web of Science and e-mails to investigators to identify subsequent publications from the study that reported results pertaining to primary outcomes. The two investigators then independently reviewed the outcome publication(s) and compared the primary outcomes reported in these to the registered primary outcomes.ResultsThe final analytic sample comprised 136 locatable, registered trials with an identifiable start date. Sixty-eight of the 136 were prospectively registered. Among these prospectively registered trials, only 16 published manuscripts reported outcomes and methods that were concordant with their registrations.ConclusionsRetrospective submission of protocols for publication and retrospective registration remain common in public health research, and adherence to prespecified outcomes is rare. In its current form, registration of behavioral and health promotion trials is likely to have minimal effect on preventing selective outcome reporting in publications, and the pervasiveness of vague and incomplete registry entries means that registries will have limited utility in terms of facilitating replication studies.
Highlights
Registration of research studies is designed to lock investigators into a data collection and analysis plan before a study starts and thereby limit their ability to engage in flexible data analysis and selective outcome reporting
There were 182 study protocols published between 2011 and 2015; 46 protocols (25%) were excluded from analysis because: they did not describe a randomized trial, the registry entry could not be found for a purported registered trial, or the registry entry did not contain a trial start date
Total a Prospectively submitted protocols are those published before commencement of the associated trial of the protocols describing these studies were submitted to BMC Public Health before the reported start date of the trial, and just 15 were both prospectively registered and associated with a prospectively submitted protocol
Summary
Registration of research studies is designed to lock investigators into a data collection and analysis plan before a study starts and thereby limit their ability to engage in flexible data analysis and selective outcome reporting. Pre-registration of study methods, including analytic plans, has been suggested as a deterrent to presenting exploratory (hypothesis generating) research as confirmatory (hypothesis testing) research in scholarly publications [1,2,3] Such registration is designed to lock investigators into a data collection and analysis plan before a study begins, inhibiting the potential for flexible data analyses driven by confirmation bias [4]. Since 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has required that a manuscript describing the results of a clinical trial only be considered for publication if the trial is registered in a public registry prior to subject enrollment [5]; and, a similar requirement was introduced into the Declaration of Helsinki four years later [6]. Adherence is even lower in observational research, with registration frequently taking place after the study has started and prespecification of outcomes and data analyses occurring rarely [19]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
