Challenges of identifying unpublished data from clinical trials: Getting the best out of clinical trials registers and other novel sources

Human papillomavirus (HPV) trials: A cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials registries

Every clinical trial must be registered in a publicly accessible trial registry before enrollment of the first participant. Prospectively registering clinical trials before enrolling participants helps to prevent unethical research misconduct from occurring, duplication of research and increases transparency in research. The aim of this study was to provide cross-sectional survey analysis of planned, ongoing and completed human papillomavirus (HPV) clinical trials conducted worldwide. We searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTR) for registered HPV trials on 5 March 2023. Two authors independently extracted data including name of the clinical trial registry, location of the trial, recruitment status of the trial, gender of participants, phase of the trial, and type of trial sponsor. We used Microsoft Excel to perform descriptive analysis. The search yielded 1632 trials registered between 1999 and 2023. Most of the trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and were registered retrospectively. We also found that most trials were conducted in North America, in recruiting stage, and indicated "not applicable" under the phase of the trial field. Finally, most trials were sponsored by hospitals. Our study found that there are many HPV clinical trials registered in different clinical trial primary registries around the world. However, many of the trials were registered retrospectively instead of the required prospectively and some had missing fields. Therefore, there is a need for registries to promote prospective trial registration and completion of all fields during the registration process.

Efficacy of psilocybin for treating symptoms of depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of psilocybin as an antidepressant compared with placebo or non-psychoactive drugs.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases of published literature (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and PsycInfo) and four databases of unpublished and international literature (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and PsycEXTRA), and handsearching of reference lists, conference proceedings, and abstracts.

DATA SYNTHESIS AND STUDY QUALITY

Information on potential treatment effect moderators was extracted, including depression type (primary or secondary), previous use of psychedelics, psilocybin dosage, type of outcome measure (clinician rated or self-reported), and personal characteristics (eg, age, sex). Data were synthesised using a random effects meta-analysis model, and observed heterogeneity and the effect of covariates were investigated with subgroup analyses and metaregression. Hedges' g was used as a measure of treatment effect size, to account for small sample effects and substantial differences between the included studies' sample sizes. Study quality was appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the quality of the aggregated evidence was evaluated using GRADE guidelines.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised trials in which psilocybin was administered as a standalone treatment for adults with clinically significant symptoms of depression and change in symptoms was measured using a validated clinician rated or self-report scale. Studies with directive psychotherapy were included if the psychotherapeutic component was present in both experimental and control conditions. Participants with depression regardless of comorbidities (eg, cancer) were eligible.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis on 436 participants (228 female participants), average age 36-60 years, from seven of the nine included studies showed a significant benefit of psilocybin (Hedges' g=1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 2.73, P<0.001) on change in depression scores compared with comparator treatment. Subgroup analyses and metaregressions indicated that having secondary depression (Hedges' g=3.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 5.53), being assessed with self-report depression scales such as the Beck depression inventory (3.25, 0.97 to 5.53), and older age and previous use of psychedelics (metaregression coefficient 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24 and 4.2, 1.5 to 6.9, respectively) were correlated with greater improvements in symptoms. All studies had a low risk of bias, but the change from baseline metric was associated with high heterogeneity and a statistically significant risk of small study bias, resulting in a low certainty of evidence rating.

CONCLUSION

Treatment effects of psilocybin were significantly larger among patients with secondary depression, when self-report scales were used to measure symptoms of depression, and when participants had previously used psychedelics. Further research is thus required to delineate the influence of expectancy effects, moderating factors, and treatment delivery on the efficacy of psilocybin as an antidepressant.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023388065.

Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether clinical trial register (CTR) searches can accurately identify a greater number of completed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) than electronic bibliographic database (EBD) searches for systematic reviews of interventions, and to quantify the number of eligible ongoing trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed an evaluation study and based our search for RCTs on the eligibility criteria of a systematic review that focused on the underrepresentation of people with chronic kidney disease in cardiovascular RCTs. We conducted a combined search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible RCTs registered up to June 1, 2023. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for publications of eligible RCTs published up to June 5, 2023. Finally, we compared the search results to determine the extent to which the two sources identified the same RCTs.

RESULTS

We included 92 completed RCTs. Of these, 81 had results available. Sixty-six completed RCTs with available results were identified by both sources (81% agreement [95% CI: 71-88]). We identified seven completed RCTs with results exclusively by CTR search (9% [95% CI: 4-17]) and eight exclusively by EBD search (10% [95% CI: 5-18]). Eleven RCTs were completed but lacked results (four identified by both sources (36% [95% CI: 15-65]), one exclusively by EBD search (9% [95% CI: 1-38]), and six exclusively by CTR search (55% [95% CI: 28-79])). Also, we identified 42 eligible ongoing RCTs: 16 by both sources (38% [95% CI: 25-53]) and 26 exclusively by CTR search (62% [95% CI: 47-75]). Lastly, we identified four RCTs of unknown status by both sources.

CONCLUSION

CTR searches identify a greater number of completed RCTs than EBD searches. Both searches missed some included RCTs. Based on our case study, researchers (eg, information specialists, systematic reviewers) aiming to identify all available RCTs should continue to search both sources. Once the barriers to performing CTR searches alone are targeted, CTR searches may be a suitable alternative.

Availability of results of clinical trials registered on EU Clinical Trials Register: cross sectional audit study

Objective

To identify the availability of results for trials registered on the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) compared with other dissemination routes to understand its value as a results repository.

Design

Cross sectional audit study.

Setting

EUCTR protocols and results sections, data extracted 1-3 December 2020.

Population

Random sample of 500 trials registered on EUCTR with a completion date of more than two years from the beginning of searches (ie, 1 December 2018).

Main outcome measures

Proportion of trials with results across the examined dissemination routes (EUCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and journal publications), and for each dissemination route individually. Prespecified secondary outcomes were number and proportion of unique results, and the timing of results, for each dissemination route.

Results

In the sample of 500 trials, availability of results on EUCTR (53.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.8% to 57.6%) was similar to the peer reviewed literature (58.6%, 54.3% to 62.9%) and exceeded the proportion of results available on other registries with matched records. Among the 383 trials with any results, 55 (14.4%, 10.9% to 17.9%) were only available on EUCTR. Also, after the launch of the EUCTR results database, median time to results was fastest on EUCTR (1142 days, 95% confidence interval 812 to 1492), comparable with journal publications (1226 days, 1074 to 1551), and exceeding ClinicalTrials.gov (3321 days, 1653 to undefined). For 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1%), however, results were published elsewhere but not submitted to the EUCTR registry, and no results were located in any dissemination route for 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1).

Conclusions

EUCTR should be considered in results searches for systematic reviews and can help researchers and the public to access the results of clinical trials, unavailable elsewhere, in a timely way. Reporting requirements, such as the EU's, can help in avoiding research waste by ensuring results are reported. The registry's true value, however, is unrealised because of inadequate compliance with EU guidelines, and problems with data quality that complicate the routine use of the registry. As the EU transitions to a new registry, continuing to emphasise the importance of EUCTR and the provision of timely and complete data is critical. For the future, EUCTR will still hold important information from the past two decades of clinical research in Europe. With increased efforts from sponsors and regulators, the registry can continue to grow as a source of results of clinical trials, many of which might be unavailable from other dissemination routes.

ScanMedicine: An online search system for medical innovation

ScanMedicine is a novel searching system dedicated to providing health care professionals, patients, carers, the public, decision- and policy-makers, and researchers with open access to the development pipeline underpinning health technology innovations. In the first phase of developing ScanMedicine, we have focused on capturing and consolidating clinical trial records hosted on national and international clinical trials registries and medical device approval data from the FDA. ScanMedicine has been developed based on microservice architecture allowing the system to be constantly improved in a flexible and scalable manner. ScanMedicine offers users a convenient and effective single search interface with interactive visualisation features that can provide an overview of the health technology innovation landscape.

Economic Burden of SARS-CoV-2 Patients with Multi-Morbidity: A Systematic Review Protocol

Economic burden issues in SARS-CoV-2 patients with underlying co-morbidities are enormous resources for patient treatment and management. The uncertainty costs for clinical management render the healthcare system catatonic and incurs deficits in national annual budgets. This article focuses on systematic steps towards selecting and evaluating literature to uncover gaps and ways to help healthcare stakeholders optimize resources in treating and managing COVID-19 patients with multi-morbidity. A systematic review of all COVID-19 treatment procedures with co-morbidities or multi-morbidity for the period from 2019 to 2022 was conducted. The search includes studies describing treatment costs associated with multi- or co-morbidity cases for infected patients and, if concurrently reported, determining recurring expenses. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Galbraith plots and I2 statistics will be deployed to assess heterogeneity and to identify potential sources. A backward elimination process will be applied in the regression modelling procedure. Based on the number of studies retrieved and their sample size, the subgroup analysis will be stratified on participant disease category, associated total costs, and degree of freedom in cost estimation. These studies were registered in the PROSPERO registry (ID: CRD42022323071).

A web-based tool for automatically linking clinical trials to their publications

OBJECTIVE

Evidence synthesis teams, physicians, policy makers, and patients and their families all have an interest in following the outcomes of clinical trials and would benefit from being able to evaluate both the results posted in trial registries and in the publications that arise from them. Manual searching for publications arising from a given trial is a laborious and uncertain process. We sought to create a statistical model to automatically identify PubMed articles likely to report clinical outcome results from each registered trial in ClinicalTrials.gov.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A machine learning-based model was trained on pairs (publications known to be linked to specific registered trials). Multiple features were constructed based on the degree of matching between the PubMed article metadata and specific fields of the trial registry, as well as matching with the set of publications already known to be linked to that trial.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the model using known linked articles as gold standard showed that they tend to be top ranked (median best rank = 1.0), and 91% of them are ranked in the top 10.

DISCUSSION

Based on this model, we have created a free, public web-based tool that, given any registered trial in ClinicalTrials.gov, presents a ranked list of the PubMed articles in order of estimated probability that they report clinical outcome data from that trial. The tool should greatly facilitate studies of trial outcome results and their relation to the original trial designs.

Antipsychotics for agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia

BACKGROUND

Typical and atypical antipsychotics are widely used to treat agitation and psychosis in dementia. However, whether or not they are beneficial is uncertain. Some trials have yielded negative results and effectiveness may be outweighed by harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for the treatment of agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid Sp), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 7 January 2021. Two review authors independently screened the title and abstract of the hits, and two review authors assessed the full text of studies that got through this screening.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trials comparing the effects of antipsychotics and placebo for the treatment of agitation or psychosis in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia, or both, irrespective of age, severity of cognitive impairment, and setting. (The majority of) participants had to have clinically significant agitation (including aggression) or psychosis or both at baseline. We excluded studies about antipsychotics that are no longer available in the USA or EU, or that are used for emergency short-term sedation. We also excluded head-to-head trials and antipsychotic withdrawal trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were (1) reduction in agitation or psychosis in participants with agitation or psychosis, respectively at baseline, and (2) the number of participants with adverse events: somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms, any adverse event, any serious adverse event (SAE), and death. Two review authors independently extracted the necessary data and assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the pooled effect on agitation and psychosis for typical and atypical antipsychotics separately, and the pooled risk of adverse effects independent of the target symptom (agitation or psychosis). We used RevMan Web for the analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 8233 separate hits. After assessing the full-text of 35 studies, we included 24 trials that met the eligibility criteria. Six trials tested a typical antipsychotic, four for agitation and two for psychosis. Twenty trials tested an atypical antipsychotic, eight for agitation and 12 for psychosis. Two trials tested both drug types. Seventeen of 26 comparisons were performed in patients with Alzheimer's disease specifically. The other nine comparisons also included patients with vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Together, the studies included 6090 participants (12 to 652 per study). The trials were performed in institutionalised, hospitalised and community-dwelling patients, or a combination of those. For typical antipsychotics (e.g. haloperidol, thiothixene), we are uncertain whether these drugs improve agitation compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to -0.15, 4 studies, n = 361); very low-certainty evidence, but typical antipsychotics may improve psychosis slightly (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.03, 2studies, n= 240; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. These drugs probably increase the risk of somnolence (risk ratio (RR) 2.62, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.56, 3 studies, n = 466; moderate-certainty evidence) and increase extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.23, 3 studies, n = 467; high-certainty) evidence. There was no evidence regarding the risk of any adverse event. The risks of SAEs (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.66, 1 study, n = 193) and death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.00, 6 studies, n = 578) may be increased slightly, but these estimates were very imprecise, and the certainty was low. The effect estimates for haloperidol from five trials were in line with those of the drug class. Atypical antipsychotics (e.g. risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, quetiapine) probably reduce agitation slightly (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.12, 7 studies, n = 1971; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably have a negligible effect on psychosis (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03, 12 studies, n = 3364; moderate-certainty evidence). These drugs increase the risk of somnolence (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.39, 13 studies, n - 3878; high-certainty evidence) and are probably also associated with slightly increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.68, 15 studies, n = 4180; moderate-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.61, 15 studies, n= 4316; moderate-certainty evidence) and death (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.05, 17 studies, n= 5032; moderate-certainty evidence), although the latter estimate was imprecise. The drugs probably have a negligible effect on the risk of any adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, 11 studies, n = 2785; moderate-certainty evidence). The findings from seven trials for risperidone were in line with those for the drug class.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that typical antipsychotics might decrease agitation and psychosis slightly in patients with dementia. Atypical antipsychotics reduce agitation in dementia slightly, but their effect on psychosis in dementia is negligible. The apparent effectiveness of the drugs seen in daily practice may be explained by a favourable natural course of the symptoms, as observed in the placebo groups. Both drug classes increase the risk of somnolence and other adverse events. If antipsychotics are considered for sedation in patients with severe and dangerous symptoms, this should be discussed openly with the patient and legal representative.

Global trends in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension clinical trials and dissemination of results

Treatment options for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are rapidly expanding. The purpose of this study is to identify trends in CTEPH clinical trials and the publication of results. We performed a worldwide review of completed and ongoing clinical trials through searching the ClinicalTrials.gov database and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for "CTEPH" and related terms. Entries were classified as pharmaceutical/procedural interventions (Group 1), all other clinical trials (Group 2) and patient registries (Group 3). Trial characteristics and national affiliation were recorded. PubMed was searched for related publications. There were 117 clinical trials registry entries after removing duplicates and non-target records. Group 1 comprised 29 pharmaceutical, 15 procedural, and four combined interventions starting in 2005, 2010, and 2016, respectively. Riociguat and balloon pulmonary angioplasty were the most frequent pharmaceutical and procedural interventions, respectively. The proportion of procedural trials increased over time from 0% of those in 2005-2009 to 29% in 2010-2014 and 54% in 2015-2020. There were 56 entries in Group 2 and 13 in Group 3. Japan was the most frequent national affiliation and the most frequent participating country, present in 28% of all trials. The proportion of entries with published results was highest with Group 3 (62%) and lowest with Group 1 (27%). Thirty percent of all publications occurred in 2020. In conclusion, CTEPH clinical trials are increasingly procedural based, with growth largely attributable to Japan and balloon pulmonary angioplasty. Most trials have not published, but results from balloon pulmonary angioplasty clinical trials are anticipated soon.

Neuromodulatory treatments for psychiatric disease: A comprehensive survey of the clinical trial landscape

BACKGROUND

Numerous neuromodulatory therapies are currently under investigation or in clinical use for the treatment of psychiatric conditions.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

We sought to catalogue past and present human research studies on psychiatric neuromodulation and identify relevant trends in this field.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (https://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) were queried in March 2020 for trials assessing the outcome of neuromodulation for psychiatric disorders. Relevant trials were categorized by variables such as neuromodulation modality, country, brain target, publication status, design, and funding source.

RESULTS

From 72,086 initial search results, 1252 unique trials were identified. The number of trials registered annually has consistently increased. Half of all trials were active and a quarter have translated to publications. The largest proportion of trials involved depression (45%), schizophrenia (18%), and substance use disorders (14%). Trials spanned 37 countries; China, the second largest contributor (13%) after the United States (28%), has increased its output substantially in recent years. Over 75% of trials involved non-convulsive non-invasive modalities (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation), while convulsive (e.g., electroconvulsive therapy) and invasive modalities (e.g., deep brain stimulation) were less represented. 72% of trials featured approved or cleared interventions. Characteristic inter-modality differences were observed with respect to enrollment size, trial design/phase, and funding. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex accounted for over half of focal neuromodulation trial targets. The proportion of trials examining biological correlates of neuromodulation has increased.

CONCLUSION(S)

These results provide a comprehensive overview of the state of psychiatric neuromodulation research, revealing the growing scope and internationalism of this field.

Effectiveness of nudges as a tool to promote adherence to guidelines in healthcare and their organizational implications: A systematic review

The shift in the United States in recent years toward value-based healthcare delivery models has brought renewed pressure on healthcare organizations to improve adherence to clinical and administrative guidelines designed to deliver high quality care at lower costs. However, getting clinicians to adhere to these guidelines remains a persistent problem for many organizations. The use of nudges has emerged as a popular intervention in healthcare settings to promote adherence to both sets of guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the empirical evidence base on the use of various types of nudges and their effectiveness as a tool to promote this adherence and to identify the boundary conditions under which they are effective. In our assessment of 83 empirical studies, we found compelling evidence that nudges are an effective tool for promoting adherence to guidelines. However, much of this evidence relies heavily on studies focused on three types of nudges (increasing salience, providing feedback, and default). Other types of nudges (anticipated error reduction, structuring of complex problems, and understanding mapping) received far less attention. We also found that this literature is primarily focused on whether nudge interventions work, with little consideration for organizational issues such as cost effectiveness, impact on healthcare workers, and disruptions of established workflows and routines. We offer observations and recommendations on how research at the intersection of organizational studies and health services can improve our understanding of nudge interventions.

A technical review of three clinical trials register resources indicates where improvements to the search interfaces are needed

Clinical trials registers form an important part of the search for studies in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness but the search interfaces and functionality of registers can be challenging to search systematically and resource intensive to search well. We report a technical review of the search interfaces of three leading trials register resources: ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registers Platform. The technical review used a validated checklist to identify areas where the search interfaces of these trials register resources performed well, where performance was adequate, where performance was poor, and to identify differences between search interfaces. The review found low overall scores for each of the interfaces (ClinicalTrials.gov 55/165, the EU Clinical Trials Register 25/165, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registers Platform 32/165). This finding suggests a need for joined-up dialogue between the producers of the registers and researchers who search them via these interfaces. We also set out a series of four proposed changes which might improve the search interfaces. Trials registers are an invaluable resource in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness. With the continued growth in systematic reviews, and initiatives such as 'AllTrials', there is an anticipated need for these resources. We conclude that small changes to the search interfaces, and improved dialogue with providers, might improve the future search functionality of these valuable resources.

Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: A review

A P value, or the magnitude or direction of results can influence decisions about whether, when, and how research findings are disseminated. Regardless of whether an entire study or a particular study result is unavailable because investigators considered the results to be unfavorable, bias in a meta-analysis may occur when available results differ systematically from missing results. In this article, we summarize the empirical evidence for various reporting biases that lead to study results being unavailable for inclusion in systematic reviews, with a focus on health research. These biases include publication bias and selective nonreporting bias. We describe processes that systematic reviewers can use to minimize the risk of bias due to missing results in meta-analyses of health research, such as comprehensive searches and prospective approaches to meta-analysis. We also outline methods that have been designed for assessing risk of bias due to missing results in meta-analyses of health research, including using tools to assess selective nonreporting of results, ascertaining qualitative signals that suggest not all studies were identified, and generating funnel plots to identify small-study effects, one cause of which is reporting bias. HIGHLIGHTS: Bias in a meta-analysis may occur when available results differ systematically from missing results. Several different tools, plots, and statistical methods have been designed for assessing risk of bias due to missing results in meta-analyses. These include comparison of prespecified analysis plans with completed reports to detect selective nonreporting of results, consideration of qualitative signals that suggest not all studies were identified, and the use of funnel plots to identify small-study effects, for which reporting bias is one of several causes. Information from approaches such as funnel plots and selection models is more difficult to interpret than from less subjective approaches such as detection of incompletely reported results in studies for which prespecified analysis plans were available.

Systematic reviews that include only published data may overestimate the effectiveness of analgesic medicines for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of analgesics for low back pain generally include published data only. Obtaining data from unpublished trials is potentially important because they may impact effect sizes in meta-analyses. We determined whether including unpublished data from trial registries changes the effect sizes in meta-analyses of analgesics for low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Trial registries were searched for unpublished data that conformed to the inclusion criteria of n = 5 individual source systematic reviews. We reproduced the meta-analyses using data available from the original reviews and then reran the same analyses with the addition of new unpublished data.

RESULTS

Sixteen completed, unpublished, trials were eligible for inclusion in four of the source reviews. Data were available for five trials. We updated the analyses for two of the source reviews. The addition of data from two trials reduced the effect size of muscle relaxants, compared with sham, for recent-onset low back pain from -21.71 (95% CI: -28.23 to -15.19) to -2.34 (95% CI: -3.34 to -1.34) on a 0-100 scale for pain intensity. The addition of data from three trials (one enriched design) reduced the effect size of opioid analgesics, compared with sham, for chronic low back pain from -10.10 (95% CI: -12.81 to -7.39) to -9.31 (95% CI: -11.51 to -7.11). The effect reduced in the subgroup of enriched design studies, from -12.40 (95% CI: -16.90 to -7.91) to -11.34 (95% CI: -15.36 to -7.32), and in the subgroup of nonenriched design studies, from -7.27 (95% CI: -9.97 to -4.57) to -7.19 (95% CI: -9.24 to -5.14).

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews should include reports of unpublished trials. The result for muscle relaxants conflicts with the conclusion of the published review and recent international guidelines. Adding unpublished data strengthens the evidence that opioid analgesics have small effects on persistent low back pain and more clearly suggests these effects may not be clinically meaningful.

General concepts in biostatistics and clinical epidemiology: Experimental studies with randomized clinical trial design

In experimental studies, researchers apply an intervention to a group of study participants and analyze the effects over a future or prospective timeline. The prospective nature of these types of studies allows for the determination of causal relationships, but the interventions they are based on require rigorous bioethical evaluation, approval from an ethics committee, and registration of the study protocol prior to implementation. Experimental research includes clinical and preclinical testing of a novel intervention or therapy at different phases of development. The main objective of clinical trials is to evaluate an interventions efficacy and safety. Conventional clinical trials are blinded, randomized, and controlled, meaning that participants are randomly assigned to either the study intervention group or a comparator (a control group exposed to a placebo intervention or another non-placebo or active interventionor not exposed to any intervention) to reduce selection and confounding biases, and researchers are also unaware of the type of intervention being applied. Intention-to-treat analysis (inclusion of all originally randomized subjects) should be done to avoid the effects of attrition (dropout) and crossover (variance in the exposure or treatment over time). A quasi-experimental design and external controls may also be used. Metrics used to measure the magnitude of effects include relative risk, absolute and relative risk reductions, and numbers needed to treat and harm. Confounding factors are controlled by randomization. Other types of bias to consider are selection, performance, detection, and reporting. This review is the fifth of a methodological series on general concepts in biostatistics and clinical epidemiology developed by the Chair of Scientific Research Methodology at the School of Medicine, University of Valparaíso, Chile. It describes general theoretical concepts related to randomized clinical trials and other experimental studies in humans, including fundamental elements, historical development, bioethical issues, structure, design, association measures, biases, and reporting guidelines. Factors that should be considered in the execution and evaluation of a clinical trial are also covered.

Clinical trial registry use in minimally invasive surgical oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: to evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer clinical questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for efficacy of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review and Directions for Future Research

One of the most important discoveries and creative developments that is playing a vital role in the professional world today is blockchain technology. Blockchain technology moves in the direction of persistent revolution and change. It is a chain of blocks that covers information and maintains trust between individuals no matter how far they are. In the last couple of years, the upsurge in blockchain technology has obliged scholars and specialists to scrutinize new ways to apply blockchain technology with a wide range of domains. The dramatic increase in blockchain technology has provided many new application opportunities, including healthcare applications. This survey provides a comprehensive review of emerging blockchain-based healthcare technologies and related applications. In this inquiry, we call attention to the open research matters in this fast-growing field, explaining them in some details. We also show the potential of blockchain technology in revolutionizing healthcare industry.

Graphical augmentations to sample-size-based funnel plot in meta-analysis

Assessing publication bias is a critical procedure in meta-analyses for rating the synthesized overall evidence. Because statistical tests for publication bias are usually not powerful and only give P values that inform either the presence or absence of the bias, examining the asymmetry of funnel plots has been popular to investigate potentially missing studies and the direction of the bias. Most funnel plots present treatment effects against their standard errors, and the contours depicting studies' significance levels have been used in the plots to distinguish publication bias from other factors (such as heterogeneity and subgroup effects) that may cause the plots' asymmetry. However, treatment effects and their standard errors are frequently associated even if no publication bias exists (eg, both variables depend on the four data cells in a 2 × 2 table for the odds ratio), so standard-error-based funnel plots may lead to false positive conclusions when such association may not be negligible. In addition, the missingness of studies may relate to their sample sizes besides P values (which are partly determined by standard errors); studies with more samples are more likely published. Therefore, funnel plots based on sample sizes can be an alternative tool. However, the contours for standard-error-based funnel plots cannot be directly applied to sample-size-based ones. This article introduces contours for sample-size-based funnel plots of various effect sizes, which may help meta-analysts properly interpret such plots' asymmetry. We provide five examples to illustrate the use of the proposed contours.