Correspondence  |   November 2016
Why Shouldn’t A Priori Analysis Plans Be Publicly Available for All Observational Studies?
Author Notes
  • Melbourne Children’s Trials Centre, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia (A.D.). andrew.davidson@rch.org.au
  • (Accepted for publication July 19, 2016.)
    (Accepted for publication July 19, 2016.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   November 2016
Why Shouldn’t A Priori Analysis Plans Be Publicly Available for All Observational Studies?
Anesthesiology 11 2016, Vol.125, 1074. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001299
Anesthesiology 11 2016, Vol.125, 1074. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001299
We read with interest the recent editorial by Eisenach et al.1  on the importance of reporting the a priori analysis plan of observational research. In a similar vein, clinical trialists are already very familiar with the need for prospectively registering randomized controlled trials (RCTs); indeed, if you have not registered the RCT, no major anesthesia journal is likely to publish the results. A key aspect of registration is its public accessibility that allows both the reviewer and reader to detect selective reporting, outcome switching, and data dredging. Some trial registries also have the capacity for researchers to upload the entire protocols and analysis plans, which further allows the reader to evaluate the veracity of the published work. Indeed, increasingly, RCT protocols are being published in dedicated journals well in advance of the eventual trial completion.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large