Brief report: inadequate description and discussion of enrolled patient characteristics and potential inter-study site differences in reports of randomized controlled trials: a systematic survey in six rheumatology journals

Reporting of patients' characteristics in rehabilitation trials: an analysis of publications of RCTs in major clinical rehabilitation journals

BACKGROUND

The reporting of patients' characteristics in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) is one important dimension to improve the clinical replicability or transferability of study results into clinical practice.

AIM

Based on a previously developed framework for reporting on patient characteristics, the aim of this study was to determine whether and how patients' characteristics are presented in RCTs of major rehabilitation journals.

DESIGN

A literature search in eight high-impact medical rehabilitation journals was conducted.

SETTING

Any setting.

POPULATION

A rehabilitation patient group.

METHODS

Papers were included if they presented results on a RCT on rehabilitation patients. We excluded pilot or feasibility studies. We extracted information related to the description of personal, clinical and diagnosis-specific characteristics, comorbidities, and functioning according to the ICF (body functions and structures, activities and participation and context personal/environmental factors).

RESULTS

From a total of 129 papers initially identified we finally included 100 papers. Patient groups were almost exclusively defined by clinical diagnostic groups. Age and gender were the most prominent persons' characteristics (100% / 99% reported), followed by marital (22%), educational (15%) and occupational status (14%). Clinical characteristics usually relate to the respective diagnosis; general characteristics were reported on the duration of illness or symptoms (62%), to a lesser degree on BMI (45%) and/or weight (32%) and height (27%). One out of five papers report on comorbidities of the patients (20%). Information of body functions were present in almost every paper (98%), and nearly two third reported at least some aspect of activities and participation at baseline (63%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis shows that there is a need to further the development of appropriate standards for the reporting of patient characteristics in rehabilitation trials.

CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT

In future it should help rehabilitation practitioners to decide whether the patients in a study and their own patients share features similar enough to allow for transferability of results.

Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite editorial advice

The Journal of Physiology and British Journal of Pharmacology jointly published an editorial series in 2011 to improve standards in statistical reporting and data analysis. It is not known whether reporting practices changed in response to the editorial advice. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of reporting practices in a random sample of research papers published in these journals before (n = 202) and after (n = 199) publication of the editorial advice. Descriptive data are presented. There was no evidence that reporting practices improved following publication of the editorial advice. Overall, 76-84% of papers with written measures that summarized data variability used standard errors of the mean, and 90-96% of papers did not report exact p-values for primary analyses and post-hoc tests. 76-84% of papers that plotted measures to summarize data variability used standard errors of the mean, and only 2-4% of papers plotted raw data used to calculate variability. Of papers that reported p-values between 0.05 and 0.1, 56-63% interpreted these as trends or statistically significant. Implied or gross spin was noted incidentally in papers before (n = 10) and after (n = 9) the editorial advice was published. Overall, poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin were present before and after the editorial advice was published. While the scientific community continues to implement strategies for improving reporting practices, our results indicate stronger incentives or enforcements are needed.

Simple decision-tree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before-after study

Background

There is evidence that direct journal endorsement of reporting guidelines can lead to important improvements in the quality and reliability of the published research. However, over the last 20 years, there has been a proliferation of reporting guidelines for different study designs, making it impractical for a journal to explicitly endorse them all. The objective of this study was to investigate whether a decision tree tool made available during the submission process facilitates author identification of the relevant reporting guideline.

Methods

This was a prospective 14-week before–after study across four speciality medical research journals. During the submission process, authors were prompted to follow the relevant reporting guideline from the EQUATOR Network and asked to confirm that they followed the guideline (‘before’). After 7 weeks, this prompt was updated to include a direct link to the decision-tree tool and an additional prompt for those authors who stated that ‘no guidelines were applicable’ (‘after’). For each article submitted, the authors’ response, what guideline they followed (if any) and what reporting guideline they should have followed (including none relevant) were recorded.

Results

Overall, 590 manuscripts were included in this analysis—300 in the before cohort and 290 in the after. There were relevant reporting guidelines for 75% of manuscripts in each group; STROBE was the most commonly applicable reporting guideline, relevant for 35% (n = 106) and 37% (n = 106) of manuscripts, respectively. Use of the tool was associated with an 8.4% improvement in the number of authors correctly identifying the relevant reporting guideline for their study (p < 0.0001), a 14% reduction in the number of authors incorrectly stating that there were no relevant reporting guidelines (p < 0.0001), and a 1.7% reduction in authors choosing a guideline (p = 0.10). However, the ‘after’ cohort also saw a significant increase in the number of authors stating that there were relevant reporting guidelines for their study, but not specifying which (34 vs 29%; p = 0.04).

Conclusion

This study suggests that use of a decision-tree tool during submission of a manuscript is associated with improved author identification of the relevant reporting guidelines for their study type; however, the majority of authors still failed to correctly identify the relevant guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41073-017-0044-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Use of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014).