2. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, et al. Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials. gov—the
final rule. The New England journal of medicine 2016;375(20):1998-2004. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1611785
3. Department of Health and Human Services. CFR Title 21, Section 312. Investigational
New Drug Application, 2010.
6. Golder S, Loke YK, Wright K, et al. Most systematic reviews of adverse effects
did not include unpublished data. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2016;77:125-33. doi: 10.1016/S0889-8588(05)70309-9
7. Parsons R, Golder S, Watt I. More than one-third of systematic reviews did not
fully report the adverse events outcome. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2019;108:95-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.007
8. Bonini S, Eichler H-G, Wathion N, et al. Transparency and the European Medicines
Agency—sharing of clinical trial data. The New England journal of medicine 2014;371(26):2452-55.
9. Doshi P, Jefferson T. The first 2 years of the European Medicines Agency's policy
on access to documents: secret no longer. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173(5):380-82.
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new
steps FDA is taking to enhance transparency of clinical trial information to support
innovation and scientific inquiry related to new drugs [press release]. January 16,
11. Bierer BE, Li R, Barnes M, et al. A global, neutral platform for sharing trial
data. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;374(25):2411-13.
12. Krumholz HM, Waldstreicher J. The Yale Open Data Access (YODA) project—a mechanism
for data sharing. New England Journal of Medicine 2016;375(5):403-05.
13. Ross JS, Waldstreicher J, Bamford S, et al. Overview and experience of the YODA
Project with clinical trial data sharing after 5 years. Scientific data 2018;5:180268.
14. Dickersin K, Min Y-I, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research
results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992;267(3):374-78. doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036
15. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence
of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One 2013;8(7):e66844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844
16. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on
PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. Bmj 2005;330(7494):753-56. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F
17. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting
of outcomes in randomized trials - Comparison of Protocols to published articles.
JAMA 2004;291(20):2457-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457
18. Chan AW, Krieza-Jeric K, Schmid I, et al. Outcome reporting bias in randomized
trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Can Med Assoc J 2004;171(7):735-40. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1041086
19. Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses
and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical
trials. PLoS Med 2014;11(6):e1001666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666
20. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, et al. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical
trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2017;86:39-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007
21. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, et al. Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored
trials of gabapentin for off-label use. The New England journal of medicine 2009;361(20):1963-71. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0906126
22. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, et al. Harms are assessed inconsistently and reported
inadequately Part 2: Non-systematic adverse events. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2019;113:11-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.020
23. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, et al. Harms are assessed inconsistently and reported
inadequately Part 1: Systematic adverse events. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2019;113:20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.022
24. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, et al. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts
can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2017;91:95-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.014
25. Golder S, Loke YK, Wright K, et al. Reporting of adverse events in published and
unpublished studies of health care interventions: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2016;13(9):e1002127. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127
26. Halfpenny NJA, Quigley JM, Thompson JC, et al. Value and usability of unpublished
data sources for systematic reviews and network meta-analyses. Evid-Based Med 2016;21(6):208-13. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110494
27. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials:
reanalysis of meta-analyses. Bmj 2012;344:d7202. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7202
28. Hartung DM, Zarin DA, Guise J-M, et al. Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.
gov results database and peer-reviewed publications. Ann Intern Med 2014;160(7):477-83. doi: 10.7326/M13-0480
29. Jefferson T, Jones MA, Doshi P, et al. Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing
and treating influenza in healthy adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;1 Art. No.: CD008965 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4
30. Le Noury J, Nardo JM, Healy D, et al. Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms
of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence. Bmj 2015;351:h4320. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4320
31. Riveros C, Dechartres A, Perrodeau E, et al. Timing and completeness of trial
results posted at ClinicalTrials. gov and published in journals. PLoS Med 2013;10(12):e1001566. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566
32. Rodgers MA, Brown JV, Heirs MK, et al. Reporting of industry funded study outcome
data: comparison of confidential and published data on the safety and effectiveness
of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion. Bmj 2013;346:f3981. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3981
34. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, et al. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. The New England journal of medicine 2011;364(9):852-60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012065
36. Lineberry N, Berlin JA, Mansi B, et al. Recommendations to improve adverse event
reporting in clinical trial publications: a joint pharmaceutical industry/journal
editor perspective. Bmj 2016;355:i5078. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5078
37. Honvo G, Bannuru RR, Bruyère O, et al. Recommendations for the reporting of harms
in manuscripts on clinical trials assessing osteoarthritis drugs: a consensus statement
from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis
and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Drugs & aging 2019;36(1):145-59.
38. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized
trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141(10):781-88. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009
39. Mayo-Wilson E, Hutfless S, Li T, et al. Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS)
for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol for a
systematic review. Systematic reviews 2015;4:143 (Correction: 2018; 7:48). doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0134-z
40. Mayo-Wilson E, Doshi P, Dickersin K. Are manufacturers sharing data as promised?
Bmj 2015;351:h4169. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4169
41. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14 [program]. College Station, TX, 2015.
42. AstraZeneca. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-
dummy trial of the use of quetiapine fumarate (SEROQUEL[Registered]) in the treatment
of patients with bipolar depression. Study code: 5077US/0049, 2005.
43. Crowe BJ, Xia HA, Berlin JA, et al. Recommendations for safety planning, data
collection, evaluation and reporting during drug, biologic and vaccine development:
a report of the safety planning, evaluation, and reporting team. Clinical Trials 2009;6(5):430-40.
44. Chalmers I. Proposal to outlaw the term “negative trial”. Bmj 1985;290(6473):1002.
45. Hutton J, Williamson PR. Bias in meta‐analysis due to outcome variable selection
within studies. J Roy Stat Soc C-App 2000;49(3):359-70. doi: 10.1111/1467-9876.00197
46. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in
randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. Bmj 2010;340:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365
47. Williamson PR, Gamble C. Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in
meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine 2005;24(10):1547-61. doi: 10.1002/sim.2025
48. Williamson PR, Gamble C, Altman DG, et al. Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis.
Statistical methods in medical research 2005;14(5):515-24. doi: 10.1191/0962280205sm415oa [published Online First: 2005/10/27]
49. 110th Congress of the United States of America. Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act, Section 801. 2007
50. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, et al. Practical guidance for using multiple data
sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study).
Res Synth Methods 2018;9(1):2-12. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1277
51. Mayo-Wilson E, Golozar A, Cowley T, et al. Methods to identify and prioritize
patient-centered outcomes for use in comparative effectiveness research. Pilot and Feasibility Studies 2018;4(95) doi: 10.1186/s40814-018-0284-6
52. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials
(COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus
on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core
outcome set’. Trials 2014;15(1):247.
54. Dickersin K, Mayo-Wilson E. Standards for design and measurement would make clinical
research reproducible and usable. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2018;115(11):2590-94. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708273114