@article{RiemerKrankeHelfetal.2021,
  author    = {Riemer, Manuel and Kranke, Peter and Helf, Antonia and Mayer, Debora and Popp, Maria and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting},
  series = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265518},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the 'Cochrane Risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0. Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22\% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36\% (27/75) were pro- and 64\% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41\% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22\% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37\% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32\%), a new primary outcome (26\%), and different outcome assessment times (26\%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80\% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as 'overall low risk of bias' compared to non-registered trials (64\% vs 28\%). Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MoellerVolzSeifritzetal.2021,
  author    = {M{\"o}ller, Hans-J{\"u}rgen and Volz, Hans-Peter and Seifritz, Erich and M{\"u}ller, Heiko and Kenntner-Mabiala, Ramona and Kaussner, Yvonne and Schoch, Stefanie and Kasper, Siegfried},
  title     = {Silexan does not affect driving performance after single and multiple dose applications: Results from a double-blind, placebo and reference-controlled study in healthy volunteers},
  series = {Journal of Psychiatric Research},
  volume    = {136},
  journal   = {Journal of Psychiatric Research},
  doi       = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.10.028},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-370908},
  pages     = {543-551},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Anxiolytic drugs often have sedative effects that impair the ability to drive. Our double-blind, randomized crossover trial investigated the effect of Silexan, a non-sedating, anxiolytic herbal medicinal product, on driving performance in healthy volunteers. Part 1 aimed at demonstrating equivalence between 80 mg/d Silexan and placebo. Part 2 was performed to demonstrate superiority of 160 and 320 mg Silexan over 1 mg lorazepam and included a placebo arm for assay sensitivity. Driving performance was assessed in a validated, alcohol-calibrated simulator test. The primary outcome was the standard deviation of the lane position (SDLP). Secondary outcomes included driving errors and sleepiness. Fifty and 25 subjects were randomized in Parts 1 and 2, respectively. In Part 1, Silexan 80 mg was confirmed to be equivalent to placebo after single administration (equivalence range: δ = ±2 cm). The 95\% confidence interval (CI) for the SDLP marginal mean value difference Silexan-placebo for single administration was -1.43; +1.38 and thus similar to the 95\% CI of -1.45; +0.79 cm for 7 days' multiple dosing. In Part 2, 95\% CIs for SDLP marginal mean value differences to lorazepam were -8.58; -5.42 cm for Silexan 160 mg and -8.65; -5.45 cm for 320 mg (p < 0.001). Confirmatory results were supported by secondary outcomes, where results for Silexan were comparable to placebo and more favorable than for lorazepam. The study demonstrates that single doses of up to 320 mg Silexan and multiple doses of 80 mg/d have no adverse effect on driving performance.},
  language  = {en}
}