Assessment of the quality of harms reporting in non-randomised studies and randomised controlled studies of topiramate for the treatment of epilepsy using CONSORT criteria

Measurement of Adverse Events in Studies of Digital Health Interventions for Psychosis: Guidance and Recommendations Based on a Literature Search and Framework Analysis of Standard Operating Procedures

BACKGROUND

Given the rapid expansion of research into digital health interventions (DHIs) for severe mental illness (SMI; eg, schizophrenia and other psychosis diagnoses), there is an emergent need for clear safety measures. Currently, measurement and reporting of adverse events (AEs) are inconsistent across studies. Therefore, an international network, iCharts, was assembled to systematically identify and refine a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for AE reporting in DHI studies for SMI.

DESIGN

The iCharts network comprised experts on DHIs for SMI from seven countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Pakistan, Australia, United States, and China) and various professional backgrounds. Following a literature search, SOPs of AEs were obtained from authors of relevant studies, and from grey literature.

RESULTS

A thorough framework analysis of SOPs (n = 32) identified commonalities for best practice for certain domains, along with significant gaps in others; particularly around the classification of AEs during trials, and the provision of training/supervision for research staff in measuring and reporting AEs. Several areas which could lead to the observed inconsistencies in AE reporting and handling were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The iCharts network developed best-practice guidelines and a practical resource for AE monitoring in DHI studies for psychosis, based on a systematic process which identified common features and evidence gaps. This work contributes to international efforts to standardize AE measurement and reporting in this emerging field, ensuring that safety aspects of DHIs for SMI are well-studied across the translational pathway, with monitoring systems set-up from the outset to support safe implementation in healthcare systems.

Quality of reporting and concordance between sources of adverse events in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a cross-sectional study of RCTs from a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Incomplete reporting of safety outcomes in quality and availability of safety reporting in published articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were described in different medical areas. The number of RCTs assessing systemic treatments for psoriasis has increased considerably. Complete and precise reporting of safety is mandatory for the efficacy/harms balance evaluation. We aimed to assess the quality and availability of safety reporting in published RCTs assessing systemic treatments for psoriasis, as well as the concordance of data between published trials and ClinicalTrials.gov (CT).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included all RCTs in adults initiated after September 2009, assessing systemic psoriasis treatments compared with placebo or with an active comparator. All trials were selected in duplicate by 2 independent authors from the latest search of the dedicated Cochrane review. We described quality of safety reporting for all published RCTs, using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials harms scale by using descriptive analysis, and a composite score of 3 key items of safety report. For each RCT, data on adverse events (AEs)/serious AEs (SAEs) were extracted from the publication and CT: total number of AEs/SAEs, patients with AEs/SAEs, SAEs by system organ class classification and deaths. These data were compared between sources for each RCT.

RESULTS

In total, 128 trials were included in the analysis of reporting quality, and 76 in the analysis of data concordance between sources. The median number of reported Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials harms items per article was 9 out of 18 (IQR 7-10), and mean number was 8.39 (SD = 3.02). Items in the methods section were the least frequently reported. The proportion of RCTs reporting the number of SAEs and death were significantly higher on CT than in the published article ((100% (76/76) vs 88.2%, McNemar test, P < .0016). At least 1 discrepancy between sources for SAE safety data was found in 30/76 (39.5%) RCTs.

CONCLUSION

Shortcomings and gaps in the quality of safety reporting in publications of RCTs of systemic psoriasis treatments have been identified. A lack of data in published articles and discrepancies between published articles and CT data complete this finding.

Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2)

BACKGROUND

It is critical that abstracts of systematic reviews transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions without misleading the readers. This cross-sectional study assessed whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study (part 2 of 2) used the same sample of 98 systematic reviews orthodontic interventions as used in part 1. Eligible reviews were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the 5 leading orthodontic journals between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Prevalence proportions were sought for 3 outcomes as defined in the published protocol. Univariable logistic regression models were built to explore associations between the presence of spin in the abstract and a series of predictors. Odds ratios (OR) 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to quantify the strength of associations and their precision.

RESULTS

76.5% (75/98) of eligible reviews reported or considered (i.e., discussed, weighted etc.) potential adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract and the proportion of spin on adverse effects was 40.8% (40/98) in the abstract of these reviews. Misleading reporting was the predominant category of spin, i.e., 90% (36/40). Our explorative analyses found that compared to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews all 5 orthodontic journals had similar odds of the presence of spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. The odds of the presence of spin did not change over the sampled years (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.16) and did not depend on the number of authors (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.21), or on the type of orthodontic intervention (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.67), or whether conflicts of interests were reported (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.68).

CONCLUSION

End users of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions have to be careful when interpreting results on adverse effects in the abstracts of these reviews, because they could be jeopardized by uncertainties such as not being reported and misleading reporting as a result of spin.

Adverse Events Reporting of Clinical Trials in Exercise Oncology Research (ADVANCE): Protocol for a Scoping Review

Introduction

Adequate, transparent, and consistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) in exercise oncology trials is critical to assess the safety of exercise interventions for people following a cancer diagnosis. However, there is little understanding of how AEs are reported in exercise oncology trials. Thus, we propose to conduct a scoping review to summarise and evaluate current practice of reporting of AEs in published exercise oncology trials with further exploration of factors associated with inadequate reporting of AEs. The study findings will serve to inform the need for future research on standardisation of the definition, collection, and reporting of AEs for exercise oncology research.

Materials and Methods

The ADVANCE (ADverse eVents reporting of clinicAl trials iN exerCise oncology rEsearch) study will be conducted and reported following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guideline. Any type of clinical trial involving an exercise intervention in people living with and beyond cancer with a full-text report in English will be included. Six electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL Plus) will be searched for studies. Two independent review authors will assess eligibility of identified studies, chart data using pre-established extraction forms, and evaluate adequacy of reporting of AEs-related data against a 20-item scoring checklist derived from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension. We will summarise results using descriptive and inferential analysis methods.

Ethics and Dissemination

No ethics approval will be required to conduct the ADVANCE study owing to inclusion of only published data. The study results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and internationa  conferences.

Systematic Review Registration

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/NXEJD/ (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/NXEJD).

Side effects of corticosteroids in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Corticosteroids are commonly used in palliative care settings, but are associated with several side effects. Although adverse events (AEs) are highly distressing for patients, few data are available from prospective studies to look at incidence or predictors of such harms. The aim of this study is to identify AE reporting among studies of patients with advanced cancer receiving corticosteroids for any reason.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the following data sources: PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, Cochrane reviews, and CINAHL. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with patients with advanced cancer assessing the effect of corticosteroids were included. Consecutive cohort observational studies of corticosteroid toxicities in cancer patients were also included.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven RCTs and 12 consecutive cohort observational studies were identified. The most frequently reported primary outcome of RCTs was nausea and vomiting (8/27). Dexamethasone was prescribed in almost half of RCTs (13/27). In consecutive cohort studies, the primary outcomes were a wide variety of symptoms. Dexamethasone was also the most common glucocorticoid used (7/12). In terms of quality of AE reporting, two RCTs and one consecutive cohort study used a validated AE assessment tool in their studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Side effects of corticosteroids in advanced cancer patients were poorly reported with few data using validated tools. Researchers should be aware of the guideline of AE reporting to provide the best evidence of risk-benefit balance. Developing specific consensus guidelines about AE reporting in studies of glucocorticoids in studies of people with advanced cancer would be useful.

The reporting of harms in publications on randomized controlled trials funded by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique," a French academic funding scheme

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Accurate information on harms arising from medical interventions is essential for assessing benefit-risk ratios. Since 2004, there has been an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for reporting harms data in publications on randomized clinical trials. The objective of our study was to assess the quality of this reporting from academic randomized clinical trials on drugs.

METHODS

We searched for articles on randomized clinical trials funded between 2004 and 2008 by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique." We included all published randomized clinical trials that assessed drugs. Harm-related data were extracted and compared with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension, and the space in the articles devoted to harms data was measured.

RESULTS

In total, 37 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. The median harm score was 9/18. In 73.0% of the randomized clinical trials, the reporting of adverse events was selective. Less than 50% of articles provided information on reasons for drug discontinuation that were related to adverse events. The score and the space allocated to harms were higher in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs randomized clinical trials, while the median proportion of the space in the results section allocated to harms was 16.8%. In 67.6% of the articles, the space allocated to the authors' list and affiliations was greater than the space in the results section allocated to descriptions of harms. No significant improvement in the score or the space allocation was observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of harms in French academic drug randomized clinical trials is suboptimal; moreover, this shortcoming is a critical barrier to evaluating the benefit-risk ratio of drug randomized clinical trials. Thus, the authors should be encouraged to adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension.

Characterization of gastrointestinal adverse effects reported in clinical studies of corticosteroid therapy

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether 159 studies included in a previous meta-analysis reported on gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation in accordance with the CONSORT extension for reporting harms outcomes (CONSORT Harms recommendations checklist); whether differences were associated with funding source, journal, or publication year; and whether the CONSORT Harms checklist is a suitable tool for evaluation of adverse effects reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Articles were assessed for fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations, funding source, publication type, and year. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by comparing scores for each study.

RESULTS

The mean CONSORT Harms score was 5.25 out of 10 (standard deviation ± 2.09). Most studies included information on participant withdrawals (133 studies, 83.6%), absolute risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (130 studies, 81.8%), and how harms-related information was collected (118 studies, 74.2%). Reporting of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation increased with higher scores (odds ratio 1.173, P = 0.042). There was no significant association between CONSORT Harms score achieved and publication year or funding source, but there was a trend toward higher scores in studies published in the major medical journals (score difference 0.78, P = 0.052). Definitions of gastrointestinal bleeding differed between studies. Reviewer agreement was fair to moderate with large variations.

CONCLUSION

Few studies in the systematic review received high scores using the CONSORT Harms criteria. Most studies reported on the most important criteria regarding risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Reviewer agreement showed large variations due to imprecise texts and ambiguous criteria. Routine scoring according to fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations would be inadvisable without qualified judgment.

A systematic review of orthopaedic manual therapy randomized clinical trials quality

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the orthopaedic manual therapy (OMT) literature from January 2010 to June 2014 in order to determine if the CONSORT checklist and Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment tools: (1) are reliable; (2) have improved the reporting and decreased the risk of bias in RCTs in the OMT literature; (3) differ based on journal impact factor (JIF); and (4) scores are associated with each other. Background: The CONSORT statement is used to improve the accuracy of reporting within RCTs. The Cochrane RoB tool was designed to assess the risk of bias within RCTs. To date, no evaluation of the quality of reporting and risk of bias in OMT RCTs has been published. Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified by a literature review from January 2010 to June 2014. The identified RCTs were assessed by two individual reviewers utilizing the 2010 CONSORT checklist and the RoB tool. Agreement and a mean composite total score for each tool were attained in order to determine if the CONSORT and RoB tools were reliable and varied by year and impact factor. Results: A total of 72 RCTs in the OMT literature were identified. A number of categories within the CONSORT and RoB tools demonstrated prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) scores of less than 0.20 and from 0.20 to 0.40. The total CONSORT and RoB scores were correlated to each other (r = 0.73; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in CONSORT or RoB scores by year. There was a statistically significant correlation between both CONSORT scores and JIF (r = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.76; p < 0.0001), and between RoB scores and JIF (r = 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.60; p < 0.001). There was not a statistically significant correlation between JIF and year of publication. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the CONSORT and RoB have a number of items that are unclear and unreliable, and that the quality of reporting in OMT trials has not improved in recent years. Improvements in reporting are necessary to allow advances in OMT practice. Level of Evidence: 1A.