Caitlin McCormick, Danielle Waller, Ahmed Elghzali, Logan Corwin, Tag Harris, Rachel Hazlitt, Daniel Archer, Alicia I Ford, Matt Vassar
{"title":"评估区域麻醉干预临床试验安全报告的完整性:一项注册-发表比较系统综述。","authors":"Caitlin McCormick, Danielle Waller, Ahmed Elghzali, Logan Corwin, Tag Harris, Rachel Hazlitt, Daniel Archer, Alicia I Ford, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2025-107055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland-Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ<sup>2</sup> tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0-7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule-mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the completeness of safety reporting in clinical trials of regional anesthesia interventions: a registry-publication comparison systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin McCormick, Danielle Waller, Ahmed Elghzali, Logan Corwin, Tag Harris, Rachel Hazlitt, Daniel Archer, Alicia I Ford, Matt Vassar\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/rapm-2025-107055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland-Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ<sup>2</sup> tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0-7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule-mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107055\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the completeness of safety reporting in clinical trials of regional anesthesia interventions: a registry-publication comparison systematic review.
Background: Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland-Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ2 tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0-7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule-mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends.
Results: Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation.
Discussion: In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.
期刊介绍:
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications.
Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).