Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of continuous infusions of vancomycin to improve the attainment of target vancomycin levels in young infants: The VANC trial

INTRODUCTION

Vancomycin is frequently used in the treatment of late-onset sepsis in young infants and is routinely administered as intermittent infusions (IIV); however, existing IIV dosing guidelines achieve target vancomycin levels in less than half of infants. Continuous infusions of vancomycin (CIV) are an attractive alternative as adult studies report a higher attainment of target vancomycin levels, simpler drug monitoring and fewer drug side effects.

METHODS

This is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which 200 young infants (aged 0-90 days) requiring vancomycin will be randomised to CIV or IIV for a duration determined by the treating clinician. Vancomycin levels will be measured immediately after the first dose in both arms. Trough and peak levels will be determined in the IIV arm and steady-state levels 18-30 hours after commencement of infusion will be measured in the CIV arm. Full blood count, urea and electrolytes, and C reactive protein level will be monitored throughout treatment. For all Gram-positive bacteria isolated from blood culture, a vancomycin Etest will be done to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration of the bacterium.

ANALYSIS

Primary outcome: the proportion of infants with levels within target range at their first steady-state concentration.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

(1) the proportion of drug-related adverse effects; (2) the time to achieve target levels in the blood; (3) the pharmacodynamics of vancomycin (using non-linear mixed effect modelling).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (No. 34030) and the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District HREC (SSA 16/G/335). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02210169.

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT extension for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often complex and expensive to perform. Less than one third achieve planned recruitment targets, follow-up can be labor-intensive, and many have limited real-world generalizability. Designs for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records, and administrative databases, have been proposed to address these challenges and are being rapidly adopted. These designs, however, are relatively recent innovations, and published RCT reports often do not describe important aspects of their methodology in a standardized way. Our objective is to extend the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement with a consensus-driven reporting guideline for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

METHODS

The development of this CONSORT extension will consist of five phases. Phase 1 (completed) consisted of the project launch, including fundraising, the establishment of a research team, and development of a conceptual framework. In phase 2, a systematic review will be performed to identify publications (1) that describe methods or reporting considerations for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data or (2) that are protocols or report results from such RCTs. An initial "long list" of possible modifications to CONSORT checklist items and possible new items for the reporting guideline will be generated based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statements. Additional possible modifications and new items will be identified based on the results of the systematic review. Phase 3 will consist of a three-round Delphi exercise with methods and content experts to evaluate the "long list" and generate a "short list" of key items. In phase 4, these items will serve as the basis for an in-person consensus meeting to finalize a core set of items to be included in the reporting guideline and checklist. Phase 5 will involve drafting the checklist and elaboration-explanation documents, and dissemination and implementation of the guideline.

DISCUSSION

Development of this CONSORT extension will contribute to more transparent reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

Music improves social communication and auditory-motor connectivity in children with autism

Music has been identified as a strength in people with Autism Spectrum Disorder; however, there is currently no neuroscientific evidence supporting its benefits. Given its universal appeal, intrinsic reward value and ability to modify brain and behaviour, music may be a potential therapeutic aid in autism. Here we evaluated the neurobehavioural outcomes of a music intervention, compared to a non-music control intervention, on social communication and brain connectivity in school-age children (ISRCTN26821793). Fifty-one children aged 6-12 years with autism were randomized to receive 8-12 weeks of music (n = 26) or non-music intervention (n = 25). The music intervention involved use of improvisational approaches through song and rhythm to target social communication. The non-music control was a structurally matched behavioural intervention implemented in a non-musical context. Groups were assessed before and after intervention on social communication and resting-state functional connectivity of fronto-temporal brain networks. Communication scores were higher in the music group post-intervention (difference score = 4.84, P = .01). Associated post-intervention resting-state brain functional connectivity was greater in music vs. non-music groups between auditory and subcortical regions (z = 3.94, P < .0001) and auditory and fronto-motor regions (z = 3.16, P < .0001). Post-intervention brain connectivity was lower between auditory and visual regions in the music compared to the non-music groups, known to be over-connected in autism (z = 4.01, P < .00001). Post-intervention brain connectivity in the music group was related to communication improvement (z = 3.57, P < .0001). This study provides the first evidence that 8-12 weeks of individual music intervention can indeed improve social communication and functional brain connectivity, lending support to further investigations of neurobiologically motivated models of music interventions in autism.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

OBJECTIVE

Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.

RESULTS

We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02961036.

Cellulite Reduction by Modified Thai Herbal Compresses; A Randomized Double-Blind Trial

Cellulite remains an obstinate clinical and cosmetic problem. In this study, we adapted the Thai traditional noninvasive treatment formulated with 5 additional herbals to improve blood flow, edema, and lipolysis, thereby augmenting cellulite treatment. This was a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled paired trial. Twenty-one women (20-55 years) having cellulite (grade ≥2) were treated with steamed placebo or herbal compresses randomly assigned to one or other thigh twice weekly for 8 weeks with 2 weeks washout. Cellulite reduction was assessed from standardized photographs by 3 blinded evaluators at baseline and every 2 weeks; also assessed were thigh circumferences and cutaneous skin-fold thicknesses, trial diaries, and participant feedback. After 8 weeks, herbal compress treatment reduced Nürnberger-Müller cellulite scores from 12.6 ± 2.0 to 9.9 ± 2.4 compared with 12.5 ± 2.1 to 12.1 ± 2.0 (means ± SEM) for contralateral placebo-treated thighs (P < .0001; effect size [ES] = 1.16, confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-1.83). Thigh circumferences diminished by 2.2 ± 0.9 cm (herbal) and 1.4 ± 0.7 cm (placebo) (ES = 0.96, CI = 0.30-1.61) and correspondingly skin-folds by 5.6 ± 2.2 and 2.4 ± 1.3 mm (ES = 1.72, CI = 0.99-2.45). No adverse actions were reported, and there were no dropouts, no missing data, and 100% adherence. Herbal compresses were efficacious against cellulite and thigh sizes. The herbal formula might be adapted to other delivery options, and rationally added herbals may increase effectiveness of traditional therapies and more sustainable actions.

Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used to evaluate social and psychological interventions and inform policy decisions about them. Accurate, complete, and transparent reports of social and psychological intervention RCTs are essential for understanding their design, conduct, results, and the implications of the findings. However, the reporting of RCTs of social and psychological interventions remains suboptimal. The CONSORT Statement has improved the reporting of RCTs in biomedicine. A similar high-quality guideline is needed for the behavioural and social sciences. Our objective was to develop an official extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement (CONSORT 2010) for reporting RCTs of social and psychological interventions: CONSORT-SPI 2018.

METHODS

We followed best practices in developing the reporting guideline extension. First, we conducted a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines. We then conducted an online Delphi process including 384 international participants. In March 2014, we held a 3-day consensus meeting of 31 experts to determine the content of a checklist specifically targeting social and psychological intervention RCTs. Experts discussed previous research and methodological issues of particular relevance to social and psychological intervention RCTs. They then voted on proposed modifications or extensions of items from CONSORT 2010.

RESULTS

The CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist extends 9 of the 25 items from CONSORT 2010: background and objectives, trial design, participants, interventions, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and funding. In addition, participants added a new item related to stakeholder involvement, and they modified aspects of the flow diagram related to participant recruitment and retention.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors should use CONSORT-SPI 2018 to improve reporting of their social and psychological intervention RCTs. Journals should revise editorial policies and procedures to require use of reporting guidelines by authors and peer reviewers to produce manuscripts that allow readers to appraise study quality, evaluate the applicability of findings to their contexts, and replicate effective interventions.

CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials

BACKGROUND

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently.

METHODS

Following a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram.

RESULTS

CONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website ( www.consort-statement.org ) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.

Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement

BACKGROUND

As complete reporting is essential to judge the validity and applicability of multivariable prediction models, a guideline for the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was introduced. We assessed the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies published just before the introduction of the TRIPOD statement, to refine and tailor its implementation strategy.

METHODS

Within each of 37 clinical domains, 10 journals with the highest journal impact factor were selected. A PubMed search was performed to identify prediction model studies published before the launch of TRIPOD in these journals (May 2014). Eligible publications reported on the development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) or on the incremental value of adding a predictor to an existing model.

RESULTS

We included 146 publications (84% prognostic), from which we assessed 170 models: 73 (43%) on model development, 43 (25%) on external validation, 33 (19%) on incremental value, and 21 (12%) on combined development and external validation of the same model. Overall, publications adhered to a median of 44% (25th-75th percentile 35-52%) of TRIPOD items, with 44% (35-53%) for prognostic and 41% (34-48%) for diagnostic models. TRIPOD items that were completely reported for less than 25% of the models concerned abstract (2%), title (5%), blinding of predictor assessment (6%), comparison of development and validation data (11%), model updating (14%), model performance (14%), model specification (17%), characteristics of participants (21%), model performance measures (methods) (21%), and model-building procedures (24%). Most often reported were TRIPOD items regarding overall interpretation (96%), source of data (95%), and risk groups (90%).

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the items considered essential for transparent reporting were not fully addressed in publications of multivariable prediction model studies. Essential information for using a model in individual risk prediction, i.e. model specifications and model performance, was incomplete for more than 80% of the models. Items that require improved reporting are title, abstract, and model-building procedures, as they are crucial for identification and external validation of prediction models.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of yellow yeast rice in adults with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia: A study protocol

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of blood lipids are well-documented risk factors for cardiovascular disease. For cardiovascular risk reduction, preventive strategies to lower blood cholesterol levels are essential, and these strategies include lifestyle modification and cholesterol-lowering agents. We aim to investigate the cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of yellow yeast rice in a randomized, controlled, double-blind, and parallel group study.

METHODS

Participants for this study will be selected based on the following inclusion criteria:Participants are randomly allocated to the placebo or yellow-yeast-rice-treated group. Participants with mild to moderately elevated LDL-C levels will consume 1 pouch of yellow yeast rice powder (containing monacolin K) or placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. Next, the lipid profiles will be evaluated.

RESULTS

The number of participants required for this study is 68, and is currently recruiting participants. Participants are randomly assigned to control group and intervention group.

CONCLUSION

This is the first human intervention study to investigate the cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of yellow yeast rice in adults with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia. Also, this is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that considers confounders, such as dietary habits, lifestyle factors, and genetic factors.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on working memory and negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a phase II randomized sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The lack of efficacy of pharmacological treatments for cognitive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia highlights the need for new interventions. We investigated the effects of tDCS on working memory and negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

Double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial, investigating the effects of 10 sessions of tDCS in schizophrenia subjects. Stimulation used 2 mA, for 20 min, with electrodes of 25 cm2 wrapped in cotton material soaked in saline solution. Anode was positioned over the left DLPFC and the cathode in the contralateral area. Twenty-four participants were assessed at baseline, after intervention and in a three-months follow-up. The primary outcome was the working memory score from MATRICS and the secondary outcome the negative score from PANSS. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

We did not find group ∗ time interaction for the working memory (p = 0.720) score or any other cognitive variable (p > 0.05). We found a significant group ∗ time interaction for PANSS negative (p < 0.001, d = 0.23, CI.95 = -0.59-1.02), general (p = 0.011) and total scores (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis of PANSS 5 factors suggests tDCS effect on PANSS negative (p = 0.012), cognitive (p = 0.016) and depression factors (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

The results from this trial highlight the therapeutic effects of tDCS for treatment of persistent symptoms in schizophrenia, with reduction of negative symptoms. We were not able to confirm the superiority of active tDCS over sham to improve working memory performance. Larger sample size studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Quality of pilot trial abstracts in heart failure is suboptimal: a systematic survey

BACKGROUND

Pilot trials are miniature researches carried out with the sole aim of acting as the precursor for larger more definitive studies. Abstracts are used to summarize and introduce the findings to the reading audience. There is substantive empirical evidence showing that abstracts, despite their important roles, are not informative enough, lacking the necessary details. This systematic survey was designed to assess the quality of reporting of heart failure pilot trial abstracts. The quality of reporting was defined as the completeness of reporting based on adherence to the CONSORT extension for reporting of pilot trial abstracts. We also identified factors associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Scopus, and African-wide information databases for abstracts from heart failure pilot trials in humans published from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2016. These were assessed to determine the extent of adherence to CONSORT extension checklist for reporting of abstracts of pilot trials. We screened identified studies for inclusion based on title and abstract. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using the checklist. We used regression analysis to assess the association between completeness of reporting (measured as the number of items in the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting of abstracts in pilot trials contained in each abstract) and factors influencing the quality of the reports.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-eight (228) articles were retrieved, of which 92 met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT extension score was 8.3/16 (standard deviation 1.7); the least reported items were the source of funding (1% [1/92]), trial registration (13% [12/92]), randomization sequence (13% [12/92]), number randomized to each arm (16% [15/92]), and number analyzed in each arm (16% [15/92]). Multivariable regression analysis showed that pharmacological intervention pilot trials [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-0.97] were significantly associated with better reporting. Other factors such as structured abstract (IRR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.23) and CONSORT endorsement (IRR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.23) only showed minimal relationship with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting of abstracts of heart failure pilot trials was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention was significantly associated with better reporting. These findings are consistent with previous research on reporting of trials.

ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia

Poor research reporting is a major contributing factor to low study reproducibility, financial and animal waste. The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were developed to improve reporting quality and many journals support these guidelines. The influence of this support is unknown. We hypothesized that papers published in journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines would show improved reporting compared with those in non-supporting journals. In a retrospective, observational cohort study, papers from 5 ARRIVE supporting (SUPP) and 2 non-supporting (nonSUPP) journals, published before (2009) and 5 years after (2015) the ARRIVE guidelines, were selected. Adherence to the ARRIVE checklist of 20 items was independently evaluated by two reviewers and items assessed as fully, partially or not reported. Mean percentages of items reported were compared between journal types and years with an unequal variance t-test. Individual items and sub-items were compared with a chi-square test. From an initial cohort of 956, 236 papers were included: 120 from 2009 (SUPP; n = 52, nonSUPP; n = 68), 116 from 2015 (SUPP; n = 61, nonSUPP; n = 55). The percentage of fully reported items was similar between journal types in 2009 (SUPP: 55.3 ± 11.5% [SD]; nonSUPP: 51.8 ± 9.0%; p = 0.07, 95% CI of mean difference -0.3-7.3%) and 2015 (SUPP: 60.5 ± 11.2%; nonSUPP; 60.2 ± 10.0%; p = 0.89, 95%CI -3.6-4.2%). The small increase in fully reported items between years was similar for both journal types (p = 0.09, 95% CI -0.5-4.3%). No paper fully reported 100% of items on the ARRIVE checklist and measures associated with bias were poorly reported. These results suggest that journal support for the ARRIVE guidelines has not resulted in a meaningful improvement in reporting quality, contributing to ongoing waste in animal research.

Imbalance p values for baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a last resort for the use of p values? A pro and contra debate

Background

Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are usually accompanied by a table that compares covariates between the study groups at baseline. Sometimes, the investigators report p values for imbalanced covariates. The aim of this debate is to illustrate the pro and contra of the use of these p values in RCTs.

Pro

Low p values can be a sign of biased or fraudulent randomization and can be used as a warning sign. They can be considered as a screening tool with low positive-predictive value. Low p values should prompt us to ask for the reasons and for potential consequences, especially in combination with hints of methodological problems.

Contra

A fair randomization produces the expectation that the distribution of p values follows a flat distribution. It does not produce an expectation related to a single p value. The distribution of p values in RCTs can be influenced by the correlation among covariates, differential misclassification or differential mismeasurement of baseline covariates. Given only a small number of reported p values in the reports of RCTs, judging whether the realized p value distribution is, indeed, a flat distribution becomes difficult. If p values ≤0.005 or ≥0.995 were used as a sign of alarm, the false-positive rate would be 5.0% if randomization was done correctly, and five p values per RCT were reported.

Conclusion

Use of a low p value as a warning sign that randomization is potentially biased can be considered a vague heuristic. The authors of this debate are obviously more or less enthusiastic with this heuristic and differ in the consequences they propose.

A CONSORT analysis of randomised controlled trials for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis

There is no assessment of the reporting quality of antifungal randomized, controlled trials (RCT), upon which guidelines for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with hematological malignancy are based. Trial reports were identified through Trip, Cochrane, Medline, and Embase database searches. Report quality was assessed using the 25-item CONSORT checklist and a rating scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The primary endpoint was quality as assessed by mean group-scores among papers published at the time of the most recent IA treatment guidelines. Seven RCTs were identified for analysis. Overall mean group-score for all seven papers was 2.44 (out of a total of four). There were significant differences between publications regarding overall reporting quality (P < .001) and specifically for the Methods and Results (P = .004 and P = .010, respectively), which best reflect data quality. The Cornely trial report achieved the highest mean group-score overall (3.15 ± 0.93; 95% CI, 2.82, 3.47), as well as for Methods (3.36) and Results (3.40). Mean group scores also showed that it was of significantly higher overall quality than the other six publications (P-value range; .012 to <.001), and of higher quality for Methods than five publications (P-value range; .013 to <.001). Incorporating this CONSORT analysis into the evidence-based grading systems in North American (IDSA), European (ECIL and ESCMID) IA guidelines could alter the value placed on these RCTs, thereby impacting on clinical recommendations.

Clinical trial registration and reporting: a survey of academic organizations in the United States

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, "The Final Rule" (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a "University/Organization" in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis.

RESULTS

Eligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02-0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a "best case" scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Before the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research.

Compliance of Randomized Clinical Trials in Noncarious Cervical Lesions With the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review of Methodology

The literature was reviewed to evaluate the compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT ) and the risk of bias of these studies through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). RCTs were searched at Cochrane Library, PubMed, and other electronic databases to find studies about adhesive systems for cervical lesions. The compliance of the articles with CONSORT was evaluated using the following scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description, and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses about the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country, and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were left for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received scores of 0 or 1. Flow chart, effect size, allocation concealment, and sample size were more critical items, with 80% receiving a score of 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 15.0 ± 4.8 points, which represents 46.9% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among countries was observed (p&lt;0.001), as well as range of year (p&lt;0.001). Only 4.3% of the studies were judged as at low risk; 36.2% were classified as having unclear risk and 59.4% as having high risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating adhesive systems to the CONSORT is low with unclear/high risk of bias.

Association Between Risk-of-Bias Assessments and Results of Randomized Trials in Cochrane Reviews: The ROBES Meta-Epidemiologic Study

Flaws in the design of randomized trials may bias intervention effect estimates and increase between-trial heterogeneity. Empirical evidence suggests that these problems are greatest for subjectively assessed outcomes. For the Risk of Bias in Evidence Synthesis (ROBES) Study, we extracted risk-of-bias judgements (for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete data) from a large collection of meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Library (issue 4; April 2011). We categorized outcome measures as mortality, other objective outcome, or subjective outcome, and we estimated associations of bias judgements with intervention effect estimates using Bayesian hierarchical models. Among 2,443 randomized trials in 228 meta-analyses, intervention effect estimates were, on average, exaggerated in trials with high or unclear (versus low) risk-of-bias judgements for sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios (ROR) = 0.91, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.86, 0.98), allocation concealment (ROR = 0.92, 95% CrI: 0.86, 0.98), and blinding (ROR = 0.87, 95% CrI: 0.80, 0.93). In contrast to previous work, we did not observe consistently different bias for subjective outcomes compared with mortality. However, we found an increase in between-trial heterogeneity associated with lack of blinding in meta-analyses with subjective outcomes. Inconsistency in criteria for risk-of-bias judgements applied by individual reviewers is a likely limitation of routinely collected bias assessments. Inadequate randomization and lack of blinding may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates in randomized trials.

An eHealth program versus a standard care supervised health program and associated health outcomes in individuals with mobility disability: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Young adults with mobility disability (MD) are less likely to engage in regular physical activity (PA) compared with their able-bodied peers and inactive adults with a MD are more likely to report one or more chronic diseases compared to those who are physically active. Despite the vast amount of research published in the field of PA interventions over the past decades, little attention has been focused on interventions aiming to increase PA among individuals with MD. Thus, we propose to compare the effects of an eHealth program compared to a usual care supervised health program on levels of PA and other health behaviors.

Methods

The current intervention will use a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design with two treatment groups (an eHealth program and a usual care supervised health program) in young adults with newly acquired MD. In total, 110 young adults (aged 18–40 years) with a MD, acquired within the past 3 years, will be recruited to participate in a 12-week intervention. The primary study outcome is accelerometer-measured time spent in moderate to vigorous PA. Secondary outcomes includes health-related quality of life, depression, stress, fitness, body composition, diet, musculoskeletal pain, motivation to exercise and work ability.

Discussion

There is a lack of RCTs investigating effective ways to increase levels of PA in young adults with MD. Increased levels of PA among this physically inactive population have the potential to substantially improve health-related outcomes, possibly more so than in the general population. The trial will put strong emphasis on optimizing exercise adherence and investigating feasibility in the two treatment programs. The Ethical Review Board (EPN) at Karolinska Institutet has approved the study (2017/1206–31/1).

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN), reference number ISRCTN22387524. Prospectively registered February 4, 2018

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2646-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to June week 4 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 2017 week 27) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to July week 4 2017). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of 10 studies (885 participants), seven of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update we included one additional unpublished study. These new data contributed to the secondary analysis, while the results of the primary analysis remained unchanged.For acute-phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found no difference between antidepressants as a class and placebo on symptoms of depression measured both as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants; very low certainty evidence) and as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants; very low certainty evidence). No trials reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, showing no difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants; very low certainty evidence). No clear evidence of a beneficial effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from our analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low certainty evidence). In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants as a class compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38, seven RCTs, 479 participants; very low certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty (quality) of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low certainty evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results, clear implications for practice cannot be deduced. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. To better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

The quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of acupuncture trials for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and explore the factors associated with the reporting.

METHOD

Three English and four Chinese databases were searched from inception to December 2016 for randomized control trials testing effects of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis. We used the standard CONSORT (2010 version), CONSORT Extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments, and STRICTA for measuring the quality of reporting. Using pre-specified study characteristics, we undertook regression analyses to examine factors associated with the reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 318 RCT reports were included. For the standard CONSORT, ten items were substantially under-reported (reported in less than 5% of RCTs), including specification of important changes to methods after trial commencement (0.6%), description of any changes to trial outcomes (0.0%), implementation of interim analyses and stopping guidelines (0.6%), statement about why the trial ended or was stopped (1.6%), statement about the registration status (4.4%), accessibility of full trial protocol (4.7%), implementation of randomization (4.7%), description of the similarity of interventions (3.5%), conduct of ancillary analyses (3.8%) and presentation of methods for additional analyses (4.4%). Four of the STRICTA items were under-reported (reported in less than 10% of RCTs), including description of acupuncture style (8.5%), presentation of extent to which treatment varied (1.3%), statement of practitioner background (7.2%) and rationale for the control (9.1%). For CONSORT Extension, the reporting was poor across all items (reported in less than 10% of trials). Trials including authors with expertise in epidemiology or statistics, published in English, or enrolling patients from multiple centers were more likely to have better reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting in RCTs of acupuncture for KOA was generally poor. To improve the reporting quality, journals should encourage strict adherence to the reporting guidelines.

Randomized clinical trial of remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no preconditioning in the prevention of perioperative myocardial infarction during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been suggested as a means of protecting vital organs from reperfusion injury during major vascular surgery. This study was designed to determine whether RIPC could reduce the incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) during open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Secondary aims were to see if RIPC could reduce 30-day mortality, multiple organ failure, acute intestinal ischaemia, acute kidney injury and ischaemic stroke.

Methods

This randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was undertaken at three vascular surgery centres in Denmark. Patients who had open surgery for ruptured AAA were randomized to intervention with RIPC or control in a 1 : 1 ratio. Postoperative complications and deaths were registered, and ECG and blood samples were obtained daily during the hospital stay.

Results

Of 200 patients randomized, 142 (72 RIPC, 70 controls) were included. There was no difference in rates of perioperative MI between the RIPC and control groups (36 versus 43 per cent respectively), or in rates of organ failure. However, in the per-protocol analysis 30-day mortality was significantly reduced in the RIPC group (odds ratio 0·46, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·99; P = 0·048).

Conclusion

RIPC did not reduce the incidence of perioperative MI in patients undergoing open surgery for ruptured AAA. Registration number: NCT00883363 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Standards for design and measurement would make clinical research reproducible and usable

We find standards useful in everyday life and in science, although we do not always follow them. Adopting new standards can be expensive, so there may be a strong incentive to maintain the status quo rather than adopt new standards. The scientific community has many standards encompassing both doing clinical research and reporting it, including standards for design and measurement. Although existing research standards have improved both research and its reporting, we need to unify existing standards and to fill the gaps between steps throughout the research process. Existing gaps include implementation of standards and links between standards for study registration (to know about all studies undertaken), study protocols (to identify the preplanned study design and methods), data collection (to assess outcomes that are important and comparable across studies), dissemination of findings (to know the results of previous studies), data sharing (to make best use of existing data), and evidence synthesis (to draw appropriate conclusions from the body of evidence). The scientific community must work together to harmonize existing standards, to ensure that standards are kept up to date, to check that standards are followed, and to develop standards where they are still needed. A unified system of standards will make our work more reproducible.

Description of complex interventions: analysis of changes in reporting in randomised trials since 2002

Background

Inadequate description of non-pharmacological complex interventions in trial publications means that they cannot be replicated or assessed for generalisability. There are published guidelines on how to describe an intervention, such as those from the CONSORT Group. However, there have been few evaluations of whether intervention reporting is improving.

Methods

We aimed to assess whether descriptions of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions evaluated in randomised trials are improving. To do so, we chose trials of educational and psychotherapeutic interventions to promote adherence to therapy, and compared those published between 2002 and 2007 (Time-1) with those between 2010 and 2015 (Time-2). These time periods were chosen to concord with the publication in 2008 of the CONSORT extension statement of reporting guidelines for non-pharmacological treatment which included items on intervention description. We assessed 19 items, based on the CONSORT Statement and the more recent Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist (TIDieR). Two reviewers independently extracted data. We created a quality score of the eight items we considered key information for replication and assessment of generalisability (setting, provider, recipient, comparator, intervention intensity, how it was conducted, existence of a manual or protocol, and detail of whether there was an assessment of fidelity). Score per item was ‘1’ if reported adequately and ‘0’ if not.

Results

Of the eligible trials, 42 were published in Time-1 and 134 published in Time-2. The trials included were published in 112 peer-reviewed journals, 52 of these journals currently require authors to follow the CONSORT Statements, while only one recommended adherence to the TIDieR.

Most items of CONSORT and TIDieR were reported by more than half of the trials at both time points. Few trials reported fidelity. A large proportion of the trials did not report the existence of a manual or protocol, or what the comparator group received. We found no statistically significant improvement in the eight-item quality score (Time-1: mean 5.71 (standard deviation (SD) 1.09), Time-2: 5.87 (SD 1.28), p = 0.49).

Conclusions

We found no overall evidence that reporting the specifics of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions is improving. Details to replicate interventions remain lacking, impairing best implementation or meaningful further research. Editorial endorsement of reporting checklists needs to be more extensive.

Antibiotics for treating gonorrhoea in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Gonorrhoea is a sexually transmitted infection that is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and is a major public health challenge today. N gonorrhoeae can be transmitted from the mother's genital tract to the newborn during birth, and can cause gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum as well as systemic neonatal infections. It can also cause endometritis and pelvic sepsis in the mother. This review updates and replaces an earlier Cochrane Review on antibiotics for treating this infectious condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and harms of antibiotics for treating gonorrhoea in pregnant women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2017), LILACS database (1982 to April 5, 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; April 5, 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (April 5, 2017), the ISRCTN Registry (April 5, 2017), and Epistemonikos (April 5, 2017). We also searched reference lists of all retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of antibiotics for treating gonorrhoea in pregnancy. The antibiotics could have been used alone or in combination, were administered parenterally, orally, or both, and were compared with another antibiotic.We included RCTs regardless of their publication status (published, unpublished, published as an article, an abstract, or a letter), language, or country. We applied no limits on the length of follow-up.We excluded RCTs using a cluster- or cross-over design, or quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs, that randomised 514 pregnant women (347 women analysed) at a mean gestational age of 22 weeks. Both trials were conducted in the outpatient department of the same two hospitals in the USA between 1993 and 2001, and had a follow-up of 14 days. One of the trials was sponsored by a drug company. We considered both trials to be at a high risk of bias.One trial compared ceftriaxone (125 mg, intramuscular) with cefixime (400 mg, oral); the other trial had three arms, and assessed ceftriaxone (250 mg, intramuscular) versus either amoxicillin (3 g, oral) plus probenecid (1 g, oral) or spectinomycin (2 g, intramuscular). We did not include the spectinomycin data because this medication is no longer produced. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis because the trials compared different medications.We found inconclusive evidence that there were clear differences in the cure of gonococcal infections (genital, extragenital, or both) between intramuscular ceftriaxone versus oral amoxicillin plus oral probenecid (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.16; one RCT; 168 women; very low-quality evidence) or intramuscular ceftriaxone versus oral cefixime (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; one RCT; 95 women; very low-quality evidence).Neither of the trials reported on two of this review's primary maternal outcomes: incidence of obstetric complications (miscarriage, premature rupture of membranes, preterm delivery, or fetal death), or disseminated gonococcal infection, or on the incidence of neonatorum ophthalmia in the neonates.One trial reported one case of vomiting in the oral amoxacillin plus probenecid group. Trials reported pain at the injection sites, but did not quantify it. Hyperberbilurrubinemia was more frequent in neonates whose mothers were exposed to ceftriaxone. There were no clear differences between groups for neonatal malformation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane Review found high levels of cure of gonococcal infections in pregnancy with the given antibiotic regimens. However, the evidence in this review is inconclusive as it does not support one particular regimen over another. This conclusion was based on very low-quality evidence (downgraded for poor trial design, imprecision) from two trials (involving 514 women), which we assessed to be at a high risk of bias for a number of domains. The harm profiles of the antibiotic regimes featured in this review remain unknown.High-quality RCTs are needed, with sufficient power to assess the clinical effectiveness and potential harms of antibiotics in pregnant women with gonorrhoea. These should be planned according to Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT),conducted following CONSORT recommendations, and based on Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) outcomes.

Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Recognizing the value of promoting public access to clinical trial protocols, Trials pioneered the way for their publication over a decade ago. However, despite major advances in the public accessibility of information about trial methods and results, protocol sharing remains relatively rare.

MAIN BODY

Protocol sharing facilitates the critical appraisal of clinical trials and helps to identify and deter the selective reporting of outcomes and analyses. Challenges to the routine availability of high quality trial protocols include the gaps in incentives and adherence mechanisms, limited venues for sharing the original and final protocol versions, and the need for mechanisms to ensure transparent and complete protocol content.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose recommendations for addressing key challenges to protocol sharing in order to promote routine public access to protocols for the benefit of patients and other users of evidence from clinical trials.

Using the RECORD guidelines to improve transparent reporting of studies based on routinely collected data

Transparent reporting of routinely-collected data studies is key to producing valid and reliable research that can inform decisions about patient care and health systems. This article discusses some of the unique challenges in using these data sources, and explains how the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data (RECORD) guidelines were developed to help researchers and journals to maintain a high level of quality in reporting of healthcare studies using routinely-collected data.

Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?

BACKGROUND

When reading a report of a clinical trial, it should be possible to judge whether the results are relevant for your patients. Issues affecting the external validity or generalizability of a trial should therefore be reported. Our aim was to determine whether articles with published results from a complete cohort of drug trials conducted entirely or partly in general practice reported sufficient information about the trials to consider the external validity.

METHODS

A cohort of 196 drug trials in Norwegian general practice was previously identified from the Norwegian Medicines Agency archive with year of application for approval 1998-2007. After comprehensive literature searches, 134 journal articles reporting results published from 2000 to 2015 were identified. In these articles, we considered the reporting of the following issues relevant for external validity: reporting of the clinical setting; selection of patients before inclusion in a trial; reporting of patients' co-morbidity, co-medication or ethnicity; choice of primary outcome; and reporting of adverse events.

RESULTS

Of these 134 articles, only 30 (22%) reported the clinical setting of the trial. The number of patients screened before enrolment was reported in 61 articles (46%). The primary outcome of the trial was a surrogate outcome for 60 trials (45%), a clinical outcome for 39 (29%) and a patient-reported outcome for 25 (19%). Clinical details of adverse events were reported in 124 (93%) articles. Co-morbidity of included participants was reported in 54 trials (40%), co-medication in 27 (20%) and race/ethnicity in 78 (58%).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical setting of the trials, the selection of patients before enrolment, and co-morbidity or co-medication of participants was most commonly not reported, limiting the possibility to consider the generalizability of a trial. It may therefore be difficult for readers to judge whether drug trial results are applicable to clinical decision-making in general practice or when developing clinical guidelines.

Contacting of authors by systematic reviewers: protocol for a cross-sectional study and a survey

BACKGROUND

Synthesizing outcomes of underreported primary studies can pose a serious threat to the validity of outcomes and conclusions of systematic reviews. To address this problem, the Cochrane Collaboration recommends reviewers to contact authors of eligible primary studies to obtain additional information on poorly reported items. In this protocol, we present a cross-sectional study and a survey to assess (1) how reviewers of new Cochrane intervention reviews report on procedures and outcomes of contacting of authors of primary studies to obtain additional data, (2) how authors reply, and (3) the consequences of these additional data on the outcomes and quality scores in the review. All research questions and methods were pilot tested on 2 months of Cochrane reviews and were subsequently fine-tuned.

METHODS FOR THE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Eligibility criteria are (1) all new (not-updates) Cochrane intervention reviews published in 2016, (2) reviews that included one or more primary studies, and (3) eligible interventions refer to contacting of authors of the eligible primary studies included in the review to obtain additional research data (e.g., information on unreported or missing data, individual patient data, research methods, and bias issues). Searching for eligible reviews and data extraction will be conducted by two authors independently. The cross-sectional study will primarily focus on how contacting of authors is conducted and reported, how contacted authors reply, and how reviewers report on obtained additional data and their consequences for the review.

METHODS FOR THE SURVEY

The same eligible reviews for the cross-sectional study will also be eligible for the survey. Surveys will be sent to the contact addresses of these reviews according to a pre-defined protocol. We will use Google Forms as our survey platform. Surveyees are asked to answer eight questions. The survey will primarily focus on the consequences of contacting authors of eligible primary studies for the risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation scores and the primary and secondary outcomes of the review.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study could help improve methods of contacting authors and reporting of these procedures and their outcomes. Patients, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, research sponsors, and the general public will all be beneficiaries.

Quality of abstracts of pilot trials in heart failure: A protocol for a systematic survey

INTRODUCTION

Pilot trials are initial small-scale studies done to inform the design of larger trials. Their findings like other studies are usually disseminated as peer-reviewed journal articles. Abstracts are used to introduce the contents to readers, and give a general idea about the full reports and sometimes are the only source of information available to readers. Despite their importance, the contents of abstracts of trial reports are usually not informative enough and lack the essential details.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a planned systematic survey with a primary aim of analyzing the reporting quality measured as the completeness of the reporting of pilot trial abstracts in heart failure. The secondary aim will be to explore factors associated with better reporting quality.Abstracts of heart failure pilot trials in humans (journal and conference abstracts) published in the English language from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2016 will be assessed to determine the reporting quality, based on the CONSORT 2010 statement extension to randomized pilot and feasibility trials. All non-pilot/feasibility trials and non-human pilot trials will be excluded. We will search Medline (PUBMED), Cochrane controlled trials register, Scopus and African wide information databases for pilot trials in heart failure. Title and abstracts of identified studies will be screened for inclusion and data extracted independently by two reviewers in duplicate without using the full text. Reported and unreported items on the abstracts will be presented as frequencies and percentages, a descriptive analysis will be used to interpret the reporting quality and regression analysis used for characteristics associated with greater statistical reporting at 95% confidence interval.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016049911.

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research.

Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial: a protocol for the pragmatic randomised study of appendicitis treatment

INTRODUCTION

Several European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy.

OBJECTIVES

The Comparing Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial for acute appendicitis aims to determine whether the antibiotic treatment strategy is non-inferior to appendectomy.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

CODA is a randomised, pragmatic non-inferiority trial that aims to recruit 1552 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis. Participants are randomised to appendectomy or 10 days of antibiotics (including an option for complete outpatient therapy). A total of 500 patients who decline randomisation but consent to follow-up will be included in a parallel observational cohort. The primary analytic outcome is quality of life (measured by the EuroQol five dimension index) at 4 weeks. Clinical adverse events, rate of eventual appendectomy, decisional regret, return to work/school, work productivity and healthcare utilisation will be compared. Planned exploratory analyses will identify subpopulations that may have a differential risk of eventual appendectomy in the antibiotic treatment arm.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the University of Washington's Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02800785.

Problems and Progress regarding Sex Bias and Omission in Neuroscience Research

Neuroscience research has historically ignored female animals. This neglect comes in two general forms. The first is sex bias, defined as favoring one sex over another; in this case, male over female. The second is sex omission, which is the lack of reporting sex. The recognition of this phenomenon has generated fierce debate across the sciences. Here we test whether sex bias and omission are still present in the neuroscience literature, whether studies employing both males and females neglect sex as an experimental variable, and whether sex bias and omission differs between animal models and journals. To accomplish this, we analyzed the largest-ever number of neuroscience articles for sex bias and omission: 6636 articles using mice or rats in 6 journals published from 2010 to 2014. Sex omission is declining, as increasing numbers of articles report sex. Sex bias remains present, as increasing numbers of articles report the sole use of males. Articles using both males and females are also increasing, but few report assessing sex as an experimental variable. Sex bias and omission varies substantially by animal model and journal. These findings are essential for understanding the complex status of sex bias and omission in neuroscience research and may inform effective decisions regarding policy action.

A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review

Irreproducibility of preclinical biomedical research has gained recent attention. It is suggested that requiring authors to complete a checklist at the time of manuscript submission would improve the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, and ultimately enhance reproducibility. Whether a checklist enhances quality and transparency in reporting preclinical animal studies, however, has not been empirically studied. Here we searched two highly cited life science journals, one that requires a checklist at submission (Nature) and one that does not (Cell), to identify in vivo animal studies. After screening 943 articles, a total of 80 articles were identified in 2013 (pre-checklist) and 2015 (post-checklist), and included for the detailed evaluation of reporting methodological and analytical information. We compared the quality of reporting preclinical animal studies between the two journals, accounting for differences between journals and changes over time in reporting. We find that reporting of randomization, blinding, and sample-size estimation significantly improved when comparing Nature to Cell from 2013 to 2015, likely due to implementation of a checklist. Specifically, improvement in reporting of the three methodological information was at least three times greater when a mandatory checklist was implemented than when it was not. Reporting the sex of animals and the number of independent experiments performed also improved from 2013 to 2015, likely from factors not related to a checklist. Our study demonstrates that completing a checklist at manuscript submission is associated with improved reporting of key methodological information in preclinical animal studies.

Randomized clinical trials of dental bleaching - Compliance with the CONSORT Statement: a systematic review

We reviewed the literature to evaluate: a) The compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on bleaching with the CONSORT; and b) the risk of bias of these studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and other electronic databases, to find RCTs focused on bleaching (or whitening). The articles were evaluated in compliance with CONSORT in a scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. 185 RCTs were included for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received score 0 or 1. Protocol, flow chart, allocation concealment and sample size were more critical items, as 80% of the studies scored 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 16.7 ± 5.4 points, which represents 52.2% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among journal, country and period of time was observed (p < 0.02). Only 7.6% of the studies were judged at "low" risk; 62.1% were classified as "unclear"; and 30.3% as "high" risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating bleaching materials and techniques to the CONSORT is still low with unclear/high risk of bias.

Interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease is the most common hemoglobinopathy occurring worldwide and sickle cell intrahepatic cholestasis is a complication long recognized in this population. Cholestatic liver diseases are characterized by impaired formation or excretion (or both) of bile from the liver. There is a need to assess the clinical benefits and harms of the interventions used to treat intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched the LILACS database (1982 to 23 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (23 May 2017) and ClinicalTrials.gov.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author intended to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the trials by standard Cochrane methodologies; however, no trials were included in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no randomised controlled trials identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review did not identify any randomised controlled trials assessing interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. Randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum treatment for this condition.

Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to improve health care in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions can prevent the transposition of research in practice which leads waste of research. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the avoidable waste in research related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions in RCTs performed in SSA.

Methods

We performed a methodological systematic review of RCTs performed in SSA and published between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2015. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library and the African Index Medicus to identify reports. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and for each risk of bias item, determined whether easy adjustments with no or minor cost could change the domain to low risk of bias. The reporting of interventions was assessed by using standardized checklists based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, and core items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Corresponding authors of reports with incomplete reporting of interventions were contacted to obtain additional information. Data were descriptively analyzed.

Results

Among 121 RCTs selected, 74 (61%) evaluated pharmacological treatments (PTs), including drugs and nutritional supplements; and 47 (39%) nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs) (40 participative interventions, 1 surgical procedure, 3 medical devices and 3 therapeutic strategies). Overall, the randomization sequence was adequately generated in 76 reports (62%) and the intervention allocation concealed in 48 (39%). The primary outcome was described as blinded in 46 reports (38%), and incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 78 (64%). Applying easy methodological adjustments with no or minor additional cost to trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias could have reduced the number of domains at high risk for 24 RCTs (19%). Interventions were completely reported for 73/121 (60%) RCTs: 51/74 (68%) of PTs and 22/47 (46%) of NPTs. Additional information was obtained from corresponding authors for 11/48 reports (22%).

Conclusion

Inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of published SSA RCTs could be improved by easy and inexpensive methodological adjustments and adherence to reporting guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2034-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effects of chronic and acute physical activity on working memory performance in healthy participants: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Understanding how physical activity (PA) influences cognitive function in populations with cognitive impairments, such as dementia, is an increasingly studied topic yielding numerous published systematic reviews. In contrast, however, there appears to be less interest in examining associations between PA and cognition in cognitively healthy individuals. Therefore, the objective of this review was to evaluate and synthesize randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies that investigated the effects of both chronic and acute PA on working memory performance (WMP) in physically and cognitively healthy individuals.

METHODS

Following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of studies published between August 2009 and December 2016 was performed on RCTs investigating the effects of chronic and acute PA on WMP with healthy participants as the sample populations. Searches were conducted in Annual Reviews, ProQuest, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Main inclusion criteria stipulated (1) healthy sample populations, (2) PA interventions, (3) WMP as an outcome, and (4) RCT designs. Descriptive statistics included cohort and intervention characteristics and a risk of bias assessment. Analytical statistics included meta-analyses and moderation analyses.

RESULTS

From 7345 non-duplicates, 15 studies (eight chronic PA and seven acute PA studies) met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Overall, there was noticeable variance between both cohort and intervention characteristics. Sample populations ranged from primary school children to retirement community members with PA ranging from cycling to yoga. The majority of studies were characterized by "low" or "unclear" risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, or other biases. Meta-analysis of chronic PA revealed a significant, small effect size while analysis of acute PA revealed a non-significant, trivial result. Age and intensity were significant moderators while allocation concealment, blinding, and intervention length were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic PA can significantly improve WMP while acute PA cannot. The limiting factors for acute PA studies point to the diversity of working memory instruments utilized, unequal sample sizes between studies, and the sample age groups. Large-scale, high-quality RCTs are needed in order to provide generalizable and more powerful analysis between PA and WMP in a systematic approach.

The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Over the past decade, there has been an increase in reports of health research from Palestine, but no assessment of their quality. We have assessed the quality of reports of Palestinian health research and factors associated with it.

DESIGN

This is a systematic review.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We searched Medline and Scopus for reports of original research relevant to human health or healthcare authored by researchers affiliated with Palestinian institutions and published between January 2000 and August 2015 inclusive.

OUTCOMES

We used international guidelines to assess report quality, classifying as adequate those with ≥50% of items completely addressed.

RESULTS

Of 2383 reports identified, 497 met our inclusion criteria. Just over half (264; 55%) of these were published after 2010. 354 (71%) of first authors were affiliated with Palestinian institutions; 261 (53%) reports had coauthors from outside Palestine. The majority of the reports in our study were inadequately reported (342; 69%), and none had adequately reported all items. Of 439 observational studies, 11 (2.5%) reports provided adequate descriptions of eligibility criteria and selection procedures; 35 (8%) reported efforts to address potential sources of bias; 50 (11.4%) reported the basis for the study sample size; and funding sources were mentioned in 74 reports (17%). Higher reporting quality was associated with international affiliation of the first author (prevalence ratio (PR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1)), international collaboration (PR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 5.0)), international funding (PR 1.9 (95% CI1.5 to 2.5)), publication after 2005 (PR 3.9 (95% CI 1.8 to 8.5)) and four or more coauthors (PR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.1)).

CONCLUSION

Although the quality of reports of Palestinian research has improved in recent years, it remains well below an acceptable standard. International reporting guidelines should be used to guide research design and improve the quality of reports of research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The systematic review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registery (registration number: CRD42015027553).

Quality of abstracts of randomized control trials in five top pain journals: A systematic survey

Background

The reporting quality of abstracts of randomized control trials (RCTs) is inadequate despite the publication of consolidated standards of reporting trials extension for abstracts (CONSORT-A). We compared the reporting quality of abstracts in pain journals before and after the publication of CONSORT-A.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE in April-2016 for RCTs published in five pain journals: Pain, Pain Physician, European Journal of Pain, Clinical Journal of Pain and Pain Practice for pre- and post-CONSORT-A period (2005–2007 and 2013–2015). Data were extracted in duplicate from 250 abstracts for compliance with CONSORT-A, and for items known to affect reporting quality: journal endorsement of CONSORT, number of trial centers, sample-size, type of intervention, industry-sponsorship and significance of results. The primary outcome was mean number of items reported and the secondary outcome was the reporting of each item. We used logistic regression and Poisson regression for analyses.

Results

Most trials were single centric (76%), had sample size <100 (63%), involved pharmacological intervention (59%) and were non-industry funded (70%). The mean number of items reported was better for 2013–2015 (mean difference 0.94; 95% confidence-interval [CI]: 0.50–1.38, p < 0.001). Post-CONSORT-A, trials were more likely to report as randomized in the title (odds ratio (OR) 2.69; 95% CI 1.61–4.49), describe eligibility criteria and settings (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.35–4.54), provide effect size and precision for primary outcome (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.19–5.16), inform harms (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.05–3.07) and report trial registration (OR 5.13; 95% CI 1.44–18.32). Post-CONSORT-A period (incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.15; 95% CI 1.07–1.24), endorsement of CONSORT statement by the journal (IRR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02–1.14), multi-centric studies (IRR 1.14; 95% CI 1.08–1.20), and studies with pharmacological interventions (IRR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02–1.13) were significantly associated with reporting of more items.

Conclusions

Abstract reporting for trials in pain literature was better in the post-CONSORT-A period, but there is room for improvement.

Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review

Objectives

Assess (i) the quality of reporting and handling of missing data (MD) in palliative care trials, (ii) whether there are differences in the reporting of criteria specified by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement compared with those not specified, and (iii) the association of the reporting of MD with journal impact factor and CONSORT endorsement status.

Study Design and Setting

Systematic review of palliative care randomized controlled trials. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (2009–2014) were searched.

Results

One hundred and eight trials (15,560 participants) were included. MD was incompletely reported and not handled in accordance with current guidance. Reporting criteria specified by the CONSORT statement were better reported than those not specified (participant flow, 69%; number of participants not included in the primary outcome analysis, 94%; and the reason for MD, 71%). However, MD in items contributing to scale summaries (10%) and secondary outcomes (9%) were poorly reported, so the proportion of MD stated is likely to be an underestimate. The reason for MD provided was unclear for 54% of participants and only 16% of trials with MD reported a MD sensitivity analysis. The odds of reporting most of the MD and other risk of bias reporting criteria were increased as the journal impact factor increased and in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement.

Conclusion

Further development of the CONSORT MD reporting guidance is likely to improve the quality of reporting. Reporting recommendations are provided.

The quality of the reported sample size calculations in randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the quality of reporting of information essential for replication of the calculation as well as the accuracy of the sample size calculation. We examine the current quality of reporting of the sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed and to examine the variation in reporting across study design, study characteristics, and journal impact factor. We also reviewed the targeted sample size reported in trial registries.

METHODS

We reviewed and analyzed all RCTs published in December 2014 with journals indexed in PubMed. The 2014 Impact Factors for the journals were used as proxies for their quality.

RESULTS

Of the 451 analyzed papers, 58.1% reported an a priori sample size calculation. Nearly all papers provided the level of significance (97.7%) and desired power (96.6%), and most of the papers reported the minimum clinically important effect size (73.3%). The median (inter-quartile range) of the percentage difference of the reported and calculated sample size calculation was 0.0% (IQR -4.6%;3.0%). The accuracy of the reported sample size was better for studies published in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement and journals with an impact factor. A total of 98 papers had provided targeted sample size on trial registries and about two-third of these papers (n=62) reported sample size calculation, but only 25 (40.3%) had no discrepancy with the reported number in the trial registries.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of the sample size calculation in RCTs published in PubMed-indexed journals and trial registries were poor. The CONSORT statement should be more widely endorsed.

Quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in emergency medicine journals: a protocol for a systematic survey of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in major general medical journals and in some category-specific journals was shown to be poor before the publication of the ConsolidatedStandards of ReportingTrials (CONSORT) extension for abstracts in 2008, and an improvement in the quality of reporting of abstracts was observed after its publication. The effect of the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts on the quality of reporting of RCTs in emergency medicine journals has not been studied. In this paper, we present the protocol of a systematic survey of the literature, aimed at assessing the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in emergency medicine journals and at evaluating the effect of the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts on the quality of reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Medline database will be searched for RCTs published in the years 2005-2007 and 2014-2015 in the top 10 emergency medicine journals, according to their impact factor. Candidate studies will be screened for inclusion in the review. Exclusion criteria will be the following: the abstract is not available, they are published only as abstracts, still recruiting, or duplicate publications. The study outcomes will be the overall quality of reporting (number of items reported) according to the CONSORT extension and the compliance with its individual items. Two independent reviewers will screen each article for inclusion and will extract data on the CONSORT items and on other variables, which can possibly affect the quality of reporting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a library-based study and therefore exempt from research ethics board review. The review results will be disseminated through abstract submission to conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal.

The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in otorhinolaryngology: hardly any improvement since 1950

Background

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent the most valuable study design to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. However, flaws in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of RCTs can cause the effect of an intervention to be under- or overestimated. These biased RCTs may be included in literature reviews. To make the assessment of Risk of Bias (RoB) consistent and transparent, Cochrane published a RoB tool, with which RoB is assessed per item as “low”, “unclear” or “high”. Our objective was to provide an overview of RoB assessments of RCTs in otorhinolaryngology over time, and to identify items where improvement is still warranted.

Methods

We retrieved Cochrane reviews in the otorhinolaryngologic research field published in 2012 and 2013. We used all judgments per item as assessed by the review authors of the included RCTs. We evaluated the association between “low RoB” vs. “unclear and high RoB” and the year of publication (time strata: ‘<1990’, ‘1990–1995’, ‘1996–2000’, ‘2001–2005’, ‘2006–2012’) per item using binary logistic regression.

Results

We extracted the RoB assessments from 42 Cochrane reviews that had included 402 RCTs (median number of RCTs per review: 7, range 1–40). In total 2,356 items were assessed (mean number of assessed items per RCT: 5.9, standard deviation 1.8). On binary logistic regression, RCTs published in 2006–2012, compared with those published before 1990, were more likely to have a low RoB for two items: random sequence generation (odds ratio 6.09 [95% confidence interval: 3.11–11.95]) and allocation concealment (3.59 [1.87–6.90]). On all other items, there was no significant increase in the proportion of low RoB when comparing RCTs published in 2006–2012 with RCTs published before 1990.

Conclusion

Although there were some positive developments in the RoB assessments in otorhinolaryngology, a further decrease in RoB is still warranted on several items. Currently, biased RCTs are included in Cochrane reviews and effects of therapeutic interventions can be under- or overestimated, with implications for clinical patient care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12901-017-0036-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.