Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials evaluating herbal interventions: implementing the CONSORT statement [corrected]

Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials of Varicocele: Next Step to Good-Quality Randomized Controlled Trial of Varicocele Treatment

Purpose

To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on varicocele published from 1979 to 2017.

Materials and Methods

We searched for original RCT on varicocele published between 1979 and 2017. Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool were used to analyze RCT quality over time. Effects on RCT quality including funding source, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and intervention were assessed. Treatment parameters of varicocele were also analyzed.

Results

Blinding and allocation concealment were described in 25.9% and 9.4% of RCT, respectively. Both tended to increase and a sharp dip in allocation concealment was observed in 2010–2017. Jadad scores increased steadily from 1979 to 2017 (1.28±0.59 to 2.19±1.10, p<0.01). Van Tulder scores tended to increase from 1979 to 2017 (4.21±0.94 to 5.58±1.58, p<0.01). RCTs with funding statements had higher Jadad (Yes vs. No, 3.25±0.50 vs. 1.70±0.97; p<0.01) and van Tulder (Yes vs. No, 7.25±1.26 vs. 4.81±1.26; p<0.01) scores than unfunded RCTs. IRB approval and intervention were associated with better quality.

Conclusions

The number of RCTs on varicocele increased from 1979 to 2017. Also, quality improved over time with increasing IRB approval, funding, and multicenter trial. Most RCTs on varicocele reported the use of surgical treatment. RCTs of surgical treatments have limitations to satisfy the condition of RCT to conduct, but their quality has improved over time.

Compliance of Published Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effect of Physical Activity on Primary Dysmenorrhea with the Consortium's Integrated Report on Clinical Trials Statement: A Critical Appraisal of the Literature

Background

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are reliable methods for the evaluation of treatment effectiveness, which should be rigorous and must report with clarity. This study aimed to assess the compliance of published RCTs about the effect of physical activity on primary dysmenorrhea with the CONSORT 2017 statement.

Materials and Methods

In this study, the review of literature was carried out based on Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). All the clinical trials focused on the effect of the physical activity on primary dysmenorrhea indexed in Web of Science, Pubmed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Embase, Magiran and Scientific Information Database (SID) were searched using keywords of dysmenorrhea, randomized clinical trial, physical activity and exercise from 2000 to 2019. Out of 1423 articles, 30 RCTs were critically appraised using CONSORT 2017 checklist. The reporting quality score of articles was identified between zero and 43.

Results

The compliance rate with the CONSORT checklist was 55.58%. The mean (SD) score of the reporting quality was 23.37 (-5.15) with a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 37. The maximum weakness was in reporting the sample size and full trial protocol 23.33% and 6.67% respectively. Regarding new items of the consort 2017, if the blinding was not possible, the description of any attempts to limit bias was not described in 70% of articles.

Conclusions

Reporting sample size, trial protocol, method of blinding, and control of bias are issues that require more attention in reporting of RCT studies. We recommend that the authors use the CONSORT 2017 statement for conducting and reporting the clinical trials.

The Effects and Safety of Chinese Oral Herbal Paste on Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Chinese oral herbal paste has been widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the treatment effects of herbal paste were controversial and lack evidence to support its clinical use. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese oral herbal paste for the treatment of stable COPD.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and WANFANG database in addition to two websites of clinical trial registry were searched from respective inception to August 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying Chinese herbal paste for the treatment of stable COPD were included. Methodological quality was assessed based on Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE approach. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 19 RCTs with 1303 individuals compared Chinese oral herbal paste and Western medicine (WM) with WM alone were included for meta-analysis. The review showed compared with WM alone, the combination of herbal paste and WM reduced exacerbation frequency. Subgroup analyses showed that after two to three months of treatment, compared with WM alone, Chinese herbal paste plus WM significantly decreased the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, COPD assessment test (CAT) scores, and scores of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome, and improved clinical effective rates, lung function, and 6-minute walk distance. No serious adverse events related to herbal paste were reported.

Conclusion

Current evidence showed that Chinese oral herbal paste may be an effective and well-tolerated adjuvant therapy for stable COPD. Considering the risks of bias and heterogeneity, more high-quality, well-designed RCTs are still needed.

Developing more efficient, effective, and disseminable treatments for eating disorders: an overview of the multiphase optimization strategy

The present manuscript describes the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and its potential applications to treatments for eating disorders (EDs). The manuscript describes the three phases of MOST, discusses a hypothetical case example of how MOST could be applied to developing a disseminable ED treatment, and reviews the pros and cons of the MOST approach. Outcomes from treatments for EDs leave room for improvement. However, traditional methods of treatment development and evaluation (i.e., the treatment package approach) make it challenging to determine how best to improve ED treatments. For example, testing full treatment packages in open trials and RCTs without systematic testing of each component is inefficient (as it is unknown which components are effective), and often does not provide concrete future directions for optimization of the treatment. Much stands to be gained by optimizing treatments in the early stages before testing them in open trials or RCTs. MOST is an alternative, engineering-inspired research framework that is well-suited to address the issues of inefficiency associated with the treatment package approach. MOST entails identifying the most promising treatment components for inclusion in interventions, then eliminating or deemphasizing less efficacious/inert components. This strategy results in a treatment comprised of only effective components that can then be tested via RCT. Though the MOST approach has limitations, it has the potential to greatly benefit ED treatment research and is worthy of application in the field.

Chinese herbal medicine for diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To provide a broad evaluation of the efficacy and safety of oral Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an adjunctive treatment for diabetic kidney disease (DKD), including mortality, progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), albuminuria, proteinuria and kidney function.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral CHM with placebo as an additional intervention to conventional treatments were retrieved from five English (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and four Chinese databases (China BioMedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chonqing VIP and Wanfang) from inception to May 2018. RCTs recruiting adult DKD patients induced by primary diabetes were considered eligible, regardless of the form and ingredients of oral CHM. Mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was used to analyse continuous variables and RR for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

From 7255 reports retrieved, 20 eligible studies involving 2719 DKD patients were included. CHM was associated with greater reduction of albuminuria than placebo, regardless of whether renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors were concurrently administered (SMD -0.56, 95% CI [-1.04 to -0.08], I2=64%, p=0.002) or not (SMD -0.92, 95% CI [-1.35 to -0.51], I2=87%, p<0.0001). When CHM was used as an adjunct to RAS inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate was higher in the CHM than placebo group (MD 6.28 mL/min; 95% CI [2.42 to 10.14], I2=0%, p=0.001). The effects of CHM on progression to ESKD and mortality were uncertain due to low event rates. The reported adverse events in CHM group included digestive disorders, elevated liver enzyme level, infection, anaemia, hypertension and subarachnoid haemorrhage, but the report rates were low and similar to control groups. The favourable results of CHM should be balanced with the limitations of the included studies such as high heterogeneity, short follow-up periods, small numbers of clinical events and older patients with less advanced disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate to low quality evidence, CHM may have beneficial effects on renal function and albuminuria beyond that afforded by conventional treatment in adults with DKD. Further well-conducted, adequately powered trials with representative DKD populations are warranted to confirm the long-term effect of CHM, particularly on clinically relevant outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015029293.

Adherence to CONSORT Items in Randomized Controlled Trials of Integrative Medicine for Colorectal Cancer Published in Chinese Journals

BACKGROUND

The majority of studies of integrative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been published in Chinese journals. These studies indicate potential benefits, but concerns have been raised over the quality of trials published in Chinese journals. The CONSORT statement provides a guide for study reporting that has been endorsed by more than 400 international journals. Previous studies have used the CONSORT checklist to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

This study focused on RCTs of integrative and traditional medicine for CRC published in Chinese journals and assessed: (1) the overall quality of reporting with a focus on methodological aspects; (2) change over time; and (3) the influence of study funding, level of institution conducting the trial, rank of the journal, and the length of the article.

DESIGN

Searches of seven databases identified RCTs. Quality was assessed using CONSORT 2010 with adaptations to facilitate scoring. Additional codes were added for publication year, hospital rank, report length, and status of the journal. Scores of each checklist item, total scores, and scores for eight items associated with RCT methodology were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighty-one studies were included in the main analyses. The RCT methodology subgroup scores were significantly higher in studies: with public funding, conducted by authors from university hospitals, published in higher ranked journals, and in longer articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Few Chinese journals mention CONSORT in their author guidelines. In these RCTs on CRC better reporting of RCT methodology was associated with ranking of the journal as "core," public funding of the RCT, and first or correspondent author from a university hospital but the quality of reporting had not significantly improved in 15 years. As the volume of scientific information produced in China grows, it is imperative that there is growth in the quality of this information.

Herbal medicines: challenges in the modern world. Part 4. Canada and United States

INTRODUCTION

Similar to other nations North American people used herbs for thousands of years to treat diseases and purify their spirits. By the middle of the 1900s, evidence-based conventional medicine received wide acceptance in Canada and the United States (US). Nowadays, people are going back to their roots and actively using herbal medicines (HMs) and natural health products (NHPs). Areas covered: This article is focusing on use and regulation of the HMs and NHPs in Canada and the US, raises concerns regarding HM and NHP safety and efficacy, offers suggestions on how to overcome these problems. Materials available from legislative and governmental websites, PubMed and news media were used. Expert commentary: Use of HMs, especially dietary supplements is widespread among adults in Canada and US. HMs and NHPs are regulated in both countries, but minimum criteria for product approval and post-market surveillance have been set. Concerns of quality, contamination, adulteration, and efficacy in are of central importance in the discussion of HMs and NHPs. Detailed product description and research are of vital importance to ensure safety and efficacy of these products. Additionally, 'herbal' education of healthcare providers and patients is needed to guarantee further successful integration of HM and conventional medicines.

Randomized controlled trials in endourology: a quality assessment

PURPOSE

To analyze the quality of studies reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of endourology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCTs published in the Journal of Endourology from 1993 until 2011 were identified. The Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) were used to assess the quality of the studies. The review period was divided into early (1993-1999), mid (2000-2005), and late (2006-2011) terms. Studies were categorized by country of origin, subject matter, single- vs multicenter setting, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and funding support, and blinding vs nonblinding.

RESULTS

In total, 3339 articles had been published during the defined review period, of which 165 articles were reporting a RCT. There was a significant increase in the number of RCTs published over time, with 18 (2.81%), 43 (4.88%), and 104 (5.72%) studies identified in the early, mid, and late term, respectively (P=0.009). Nevertheless, there was no difference in terms of quality of reporting, as assessed with the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, or CCRBT, between the three study terms. On the other hand, significant differences were found in both the number of high qualitative RCTs that used blinding methodology and those that had IRB review, when comparing the early, mid, and late terms.

CONCLUSION

There has been a growing number of Journal of Endourology publications reporting on RTC over the last two decades. The quality of reporting for these studies remains suboptimal, however. Researchers should focus on a more appropriate description of key features of any given RCT, such as randomization and allocation methods, as well as disclosure of IRB review and financial support.

The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision-making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996 with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies, the use of a deliberate challenge model in some trials, and common use of non-clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, Ill, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, IL, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock-production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines For Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

The reporting of randomized clinical trials using a surgical intervention is in need of immediate improvement: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting of surgical interventions, care providers, and number of centers in randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed to assess reports of randomized controlled trials assessing surgical procedure published in 2004. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data.

RESULTS

A total of 158 articles were included. Details on the intervention intended, such as the surgical procedure, were reported in 138 (87.3%) articles, anesthetic management in 56 (35.4%), preoperative care in 34 (15.2%), and postoperative care in 78 (49.4%). How the experimental surgical intervention was carried out was reported in 64 articles (40.5%). Most trials were conducted in single centers (n = 109, 69.0%). The setting was reported in only 11 articles, and the volume of interventions performed was only reported in 5. Selection criteria were reported for care providers in 64 articles (40.5%). The number of care providers performing the intervention was reported in 51 articles (32.2%). The quality of reporting was low as assessed by CLEAR NPT (a 10-items checklist specifically developed to assess the reporting quality of RCTs assessing nonpharmacologic treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate reporting on the management of the surgical procedure, care providers, and surgery center may introduce bias in RCTs of surgical interventions, making their results questionable. We recommend extending the CONSORT Statement to surgical interventions.