Age and sex effects on 5-HT(4) receptors in the human brain: a [(11)C]SB207145 PET study

Experimental studies indicate that the 5-HT(4) receptor activation influence cognitive function, affective symptoms, and the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The prevalence of AD increases with aging, and women have a higher predisposition to both AD and affective disorders than men. This study aimed to investigate sex and age effects on 5-HT(4) receptor-binding potentials in striatum, the limbic system, and neocortex. Positron-emission tomographic scans were conducted using the radioligand [(11)C]SB207145 in a cohort of 30 healthy subjects (mean age 44 years; range 20 to 86 years; 14 men and 16 women). The output parameter, BP(ND), was modeled using the simplified reference tissue model, and partial volume correction was performed with the Muller-Gartner method. A decline with age of 1% per decade was found only in striatum. Women had a 13% lower 5-HT(4) receptor binding in the limbic system. The lower limbic 5-HT(4) receptor binding in women supports a role for 5-HT(4) receptors in the sex-specific differences in emotional control and might contribute to the higher prevalence of affective diseases and AD in women. The relatively stable 5-HT(4) receptor binding with aging contrasts others in subtypes of receptors, which generally decrease with aging.

Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding

BACKGROUND

Blinding can reduce bias in randomized clinical trials, but blinding procedures may be unsuccessful. Our aim was to assess how often randomized clinical trials test the success of blinding, the methods involved and how often blinding is reported as being successful.

METHODS

We analysed a random sample of blinded randomized clinical trials indexed in the The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published in 2001. We identified 1599 blinded trials, and noted if they had conducted any test for the success of blinding. We also selected 200 trials randomly that did not report any such test, and sent a questionnaire to the corresponding authors asking them if they had conducted any tests.

RESULTS

Thirty-one out of 1599 trials (2%) reported tests for the success of blinding. Test methods varied, and reporting was generally incomplete. Blinding was considered successful in 14 out of the 31 trials (45%) and unclear in 10 (32%). Of the seven trials (23%) reporting unsuccessful blinding the risk of a biased trial result was either not addressed or was discounted in six cases. We received 130 questionnaires from trial authors (65%) of which 15 (12%) informed that they had conducted, but not published, tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinding is rarely tested. Test methods vary, and the reporting of tests, and test results, is incomplete. There is a considerable methodological uncertainty how best to assess blinding, and an urgent need for improved methodology and improved reporting.

Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Ghost authorship, the failure to name, as an author, an individual who has made substantial contributions to an article, may result in lack of accountability. The prevalence and nature of ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is not known.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cohort study comparing protocols and corresponding publications for industry-initiated trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in 1994-1995. We defined ghost authorship as present if individuals who wrote the trial protocol, performed the statistical analyses, or wrote the manuscript, were not listed as authors of the publication, or as members of a study group or writing committee, or in an acknowledgment. We identified 44 industry-initiated trials. We did not find any trial protocol or publication that stated explicitly that the clinical study report or the manuscript was to be written or was written by the clinical investigators, and none of the protocols stated that clinical investigators were to be involved with data analysis. We found evidence of ghost authorship for 33 trials (75%; 95% confidence interval 60%-87%). The prevalence of ghost authorship was increased to 91% (40 of 44 articles; 95% confidence interval 78%-98%) when we included cases where a person qualifying for authorship was acknowledged rather than appearing as an author. In 31 trials, the ghost authors we identified were statisticians. It is likely that we have overlooked some ghost authors, as we had very limited information to identify the possible omission of other individuals who would have qualified as authors.

CONCLUSIONS

Ghost authorship in industry-initiated trials is very common. Its prevalence could be considerably reduced, and transparency improved, if existing guidelines were followed, and if protocols were publicly available.

[Constraints on publication rights in industry-initiated clinical trials--secondary publication]

In 22 of 44 industry-initiated clinical trial protocols from 1994-95, it was noted that the sponsor either owned the data or needed to approve the manuscript; another 18 protocols had other constraints. Furthermore, in 16 trials, the sponsor had access to accumulating data, and in an additional 16 trials the sponsor could stop the trial at any time, for any reason. These facts were not noted in any of the trial reports. We found similar constraints on publication rights in 44 protocols from 2004. This tight sponsor control over industry-initiated trials should be changed.

[Selective reporting of positive outcomes in randomised trials--secondary publication.. A comparison of protocols with published reports]

INTRODUCTION

Selective reporting of positive outcomes is associated with bias.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of 102 protocols of randomised trials approved by the Scientific Ethics Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in 1994-1995 and the corresponding 122 reports.

RESULTS

The median proportion of incompletely reported outcomes per trial was 50%. Statistically significant outcomes were more often fully reported, odds ratio 2.4. In 62% of trials, at least one primary outcome was changed.

DISCUSSION

Outcomes in randomised trials are often reported selectively.

Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles

CONTEXT

Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.

OBJECTIVE

To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.

DESIGN

Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.

RESULTS

One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion.