Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Table 3 Concordance between published and registered outcomes

From: Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis

Outcome(s)

(n)

%

Primary outcome(s)

 Complete concordance

242

51.9

 Complete discordance

124

26.6

 Partial discordant

98

21.0

 No primary outcome registered

2

0.4

Secondary outcome(s)

 Complete concordance

119

25.5

 Complete discordance

108

23.2

 Partial discordant

233

50.0

 No secondary outcome registered

6

1.3

Other outcome(s)

 Complete concordance

12

2.6

 Complete discordance

31

6.6

 Partial discordant

33

7.1

 No other outcome registered

390

83.7

  1. Analysis of outcome reporting bias in peer-reviewed publications (n = 466, see Fig. 1, Flowchart)