Quality of reporting of two-group parallel randomized controlled clinical trials of multi-herb formulae: A survey of reports indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded

More pilot trials could plan to use qualitative data: a meta-epidemiological study

Background

Pilot trials often use quantitative data such as recruitment rate and retention rate to inform the design and feasibility of a larger trial. However, qualitative data such as patient, healthcare provider, and research staff perceptions of an intervention may also provide insights for a larger trial.

Methods

As part of a larger study investigating the reporting of progression criteria in pilot studies, we sought to determine how often pilot studies planned to use qualitative data to inform the design and feasibility of a larger trial and the factors associated with plans to use qualitative data. We searched for protocols of pilot studies of randomized trials in PubMed between 2013 and 2017.

Results

We included 227 articles. Only 92 (40.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 34.1–47.2) reported plans to collect qualitative data. The factors associated with collecting qualitative data were large studies (defined as sample size ≥ 60; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.77; 95% CI 1.47–5.23; p = 0.002) and studies from Europe (aOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.68–8.88; p = 0.001) compared to North America and the rest of the world. Pilot trials with pharmacological interventions were less likely to plan to collect qualitative data (aOR 0.20; 95% CI 0.07–0.58; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Qualitative data is not used enough in pilot trials. Large pilot trials, pilot trials from Europe, and pilot trials of non-pharmacological interventions are more likely to plan for qualitative data.

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

BACKGROUND

Methodological studies - studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports - play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

MAIN BODY

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a "frequently asked questions" format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

CONCLUSION

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study

Introduction

Pilot and feasibility trials are conducted to determine feasibility or to collect information that would inform the design of a larger definitive trial. Clear progression criteria are required to determine if a definitive or main trial is feasible and how it should be designed. We sought to determine how often progression criteria are reported and the associated factors.

Methods

We conducted a methodological review of protocols for pilot randomised trials published in three journals that publish research protocols (BMJ Open, Trials, Pilot and Feasibility Studies), using a PubMed search (2013–2017). We extracted bibliometric information including the country in which the study was conducted, source of funding, type of intervention, use of a primary feasibility outcome, sample size reporting, and justification. We used generalised linear models to determine the factors associated with reporting progression criteria.

Results

Our search retrieved 276 articles, of which 49 were not eligible. We included 227 articles. Overall, 45/227 (19.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.8–25.6) reported progression criteria. Protocols published in more recent years were significantly associated with higher odds of reporting progression criteria (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.40; 95% CI 1.03–1.92; p = 0.034). Pilot trials from Europe (aOR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08–0.48; p < 0.001) and the rest of the world (aOR 0.05; 95% CI 0.01–0.18; p < 0.003) compared to North America were significantly associated with lower odds of reporting progression criteria. Journal, source of funding, sample size, intervention type, and having a primary outcome related to feasibility were not significantly associated with reporting progression criteria.

Conclusion

Progression criteria are not often explicitly stated in protocols of pilot trials leaving room for varied interpretation of findings. The development of formal guidance for progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials is warranted.

A methodological survey on reporting of pilot and feasibility trials for physiotherapy interventions: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Pilot and feasibility trials aim to test whether a full trial can be conducted or if any procedures must be changed for the full trial. Pilot trials must be reported in a transparent, accurate and complete way. In this report, we present a protocol for a methodological survey with the following aims: (1) to determine the percentage of physiotherapy trial reports which claim to be pilot or feasibility trials that evaluate feasibility, (2) to determine the aspect of feasibility evaluated in the primary objectives of the pilot or feasibility trials, (3) to describe the completeness of reporting of abstracts and full articles of pilot or feasibility trials using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials and (4) to investigate factors associated with completeness of reporting of pilot or feasibility trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Reports of randomised controlled trials indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) that claim to be pilot or feasibility trials and published in 2011-2017 will be included. Two independent reviewers will confirm eligibility and classify the aspect of feasibility being evaluated in the objectives of the included pilot or feasibility trials. Completeness of reporting of both the abstract and the full article will be evaluated using the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. The primary analysis will be a descriptive analysis about the reporting quality of abstracts and full texts of pilot and feasibility trials. We will use generalised estimating equation analysis to explore factors associated with completeness of reporting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results of this study will be disseminated by presentation at conferences and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethical approval is not necessary for this study.

Effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine for cancer palliative care: overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses

Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) are often used in managing cancer related symptoms but their effectiveness and safety is controversial. We conducted this overview of meta-analyses to summarize evidence on CHM for cancer palliative care. We included systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses of CHM clinical trials on patients diagnosed with any type of cancer. Methodological quality of included meta-analyses was assessed with the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) Instrument. Fifty-one SRs with meta-analyses were included. They covered patients with lung (20 SRs), gastric (8 SRs), colorectal (6 SRs), liver (6 SRs), breast (2 SRs), cervical (1 SR), esophageal (1 SR), and nasopharyngeal (1 SR) cancers. Six SRs summarized evidence on various types of cancer. Methodological quality of included meta-analyses was not satisfactory. Overall, favorable therapeutic effects in improving quality of life among cancer patients have been reported. Conflicting evidence exists for the effectiveness of CHM in prolonging survival and in reducing chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy related toxicities. No serious adverse effects were reported in all included studies. Evidence indicated that CHM could be considered as an option for improving quality of life among patients receiving palliative care. It is unclear if CHM may increase survival, or reduce therapy related toxicities.

Are meta-analyses of Chinese herbal medicine trials trustworthy and clinically applicable? A cross-sectional study

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Meta-analysis (MA) on Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) trials is increasingly published and indexed in major international databases but their trustworthiness and clinical applicability is uncertain. We aimed to assess the characteristics and methodological quality of MA on CHM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional study. MA published during 1993-2013 was sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Bibliographical characteristics were abstracted and methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR tool by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Total of 201 MA were included and half were published in or after 2009. Only 7.5% being updates of previous reviews. Majority are published in journals with low or no impact factor, with a median of 1.5. These MA demonstrated methodological strengths in ensuring comprehensive literature search, providing characteristics of the included studies, assessing the scientific quality of included studies and appropriately using the scientific quality of included studies in formulating conclusions. Nevertheless, weaknesses in protocol provision, listing of included and excluded studies, inclusion of grey literature, use of appropriate meta-analytic technique as well as reporting of funding sources were prevalent. CHM and control interventions pooled in majority of MA are found to have substantial clinical heterogeneity in terms of composition, dosage form and route of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

There are rooms for improvement in methodological rigor, and in choosing clinically homogenous interventions and control for statistical pooling. These shortcomings limit the trustworthiness and clinical applicability of existing MA on CHM trials. To overcome the limitations of pair-wise meta-analysis in synthesizing trials comparing different CHM and control interventions, the potential of network meta-analysis should be explored.