CEBM and BMJ logo

Carl Heneghan

 

Prof. Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, General Practitioner, Fellow of Kellogg College
Carl’s research interests cover NonCommunicable Diseases (NCDs) and he is currently chair of a number of guidelines for the World Health Organization (WHO) on self-care in NCDs and CVD risk. His work involves investigating the evidence base for publication bias and drug and device regulation, and he works alongside the BMJ on a number of projects related to the regulatory and evidence requirements for devices and drugs, he is also a founder of the alltrials campaign.
Other Commitments include:
reviewer for the Department of Health, NIHR (HTA) Programme
member of the NIHR Primary Care Intervention Panel
board member of the NIHR School for Primary Care Research

Co-authored the EBM toolkit (BMJ-Blackwell’s), the Statistics Toolkit (BMJ-Blackwell’s)
Editor of a series of BMJ-Blackwell’s toolkits and, developed with the BMJ the ‘Doctors Toolbag’ iphone application and the EvidenceLive conference, now in its 4th year.

Thursday June 23rd 15:30
The COMPare Trials Project: How do journals respond to corrections on misreported trials?
Dr Ben Goldacre, Henry Drysdale, Eirion Slade, Ioan Milosevic, Carl Heneghan.

Discrepancies between prespecified and reported outcomes are a well recognised source of bias in clinical trials. The prevalence of this problem in academic journal reports on trials has been assessed in approximately 30 cohort studies to date, and been found to be high. However over 500 journals, including those covered in many of these prevalence studies, are listed as endorsing detailed guidelines such as CONSORT, which commit journals to best practice in trial reporting, including correct outcome reporting. The COMPare trials project set out to shed light on the reasons for this apparent contradiction. All trials in 5 leading journals listed as endorsing CONSORT (NEJM, Annals, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ) were assessed for outcome discrepancies. Then, rather than only publishing a prevalence figure on the problems found, COMPare sent a correction letter on all misreported trials. Lastly, COMPare monitored the response of both the journal and the trialists, recording time to publication (or non-publication); identifying discrepancies between CONSORT and real-world practice; and documenting misunderstandings about correct outcome reporting among trialists and editors.

In this session you will:

  • Learn about the evidence on the prevalence of outcome misreporting.
  • Learn about the harms of outcome misreporting.
  • Learn about CONSORT guidance on correct outcome reporting.
  • Check yourself for outcome reporting on a recently published trial.
  • Learn about some of the findings from COMPare, including the responses from journal editors.
  • Discuss the opportunities for monitoring and feedback projects on methodological shortcomings.

2018 Call for Abstracts
Open

2018 Registration
Open