Transparent reporting of trials is essential

STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, MOOSE, STARD, SPIRIT, and other guidelines - Overview and application

The purpose of research is to seek answers and new knowledge. When conducted properly and systematically, research adds to humanity's corpus of knowledge and hence to our general advancement. However, this is only possible if reported research is accurate and transparent. Guidelines for all the major types of studies (STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, MOOSE, STARD, and SPIRIT) have been developed and refined over the years, and their inception, development, and application are briefly discussed in this paper. Indeed, there are currently over 250 of these guidelines for various types of medical research, and these are published by the EQUATOR network. This paper will also briefly review progress in acceptance and adoption of these guidelines.

Methods and results used in the development of a consensus-driven extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE)

OBJECTIVES

Randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) has been developed with the goal of improving reporting quality. This article describes the processes and methods used to develop the extension and decisions made to arrive at the final checklist.

METHODS

The development process involved five stages: (1) identification of the need for a reporting guideline and project launch; (2) conduct of a scoping review to identify possible modifications to CONSORT 2010 checklist items and possible new extension items; (3) a three-round modified Delphi study involving key stakeholders to gather feedback on the checklist; (4) a consensus meeting to finalise items to be included in the extension, followed by stakeholder piloting of the checklist; and (5) publication, dissemination and implementation of the final checklist.

RESULTS

27 items were initially developed and rated in Delphi round 1, 13 items were rated in round 2 and 11 items were rated in round 3. Response rates for the Delphi study were 92 of 125 (74%) invited participants in round 1, 77 of 92 (84%) round 1 completers in round 2 and 62 of 77 (81%) round 2 completers in round 3. Twenty-seven members of the project team representing a variety of stakeholder groups attended the in-person consensus meeting. The final checklist includes five new items and eight modified items. The extension Explanation & Elaboration document further clarifies aspects that are important to report.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of CONSORT-ROUTINE and accompanying Explanation & Elaboration document will improve conduct of trials, as well as the transparency and completeness of reporting of trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data.

Extracts or Active Components from Acorus gramineus Aiton for Cognitive Function Impairment: Preclinical Evidence and Possible Mechanisms

Extracts or active components from Acorus gramineus Aiton (EAAGA) have been clinically used for cognition impairment more than hundreds of years and are still used in modern times in China and elsewhere worldwide. Previous studies reported that EAAGA improves cognition impairment in animal models. Here, we conducted a preclinical systematic review to assess the current evidence of EAAGA for cognition impairment. We searched 7 databases up until June 2019. Methodological quality for each included studies was accessed according to the CAMARADES 10-item checklist. The primary outcome measures were neurobehavioral function scores evaluated by the Morris water maze test, electrical Y-maze test, step-down test, radial eight-arm maze test, and step-through test. The secondary outcome measures were mechanisms of EAAGA for cognition function. Finally, 34 studies involving 1431 animals were identified. The quality score of studies range from 1 to 6, and the median was 3.32. Compared with controls, the results of the meta-analysis indicated EAAGA exerted a significant effect in decreasing the escape latency and error times and in increasing the length of time spent in the platform quadrant and the number of platform crossings representing learning ability and memory function (all P < 0.01). The possible mechanisms of EAAGA are largely through anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiapoptosis activities, inhibition of neurotoxicity, regulating synaptic plasticity, protecting cerebrovascular, stimulating cholinergic system, and suppressing astrocyte activation. In conclusion, EAAGA exert potential neuroprotective effects in experimental cognition impairment, and EAAGA could be a candidate for cognition impairment treatment and further clinical trials.

Write a Scientific Paper (WASP): Guidelines for reporting medical research

Several guidelines have been created in an attempt to raise the quality of different kinds of studies. These also attempt to ensure that research is reported accurately and transparently. Six such guidelines (CONSORT, MOOSE, PRISMA, SPIRIT, STARD, and STROBE) will be briefly discussed in this paper. The purpose of these guidelines is "to create a manual for the authors to follow, which should lead to total transparency, accurate reporting, and easier assessment of the validity of reported research findings." This goal has not been completely reached and it remains uncertain how it can as mandatory and full implementation at the journal end would entail significant and costly man-hours.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts by five high-impact general medical journals and to assess whether the quality of reporting was homogeneous across these journals.

DESIGN

This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in five high-impact general medical journals.

PARTICIPANTS

We used up to 100 RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2014 from each of the following journals: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals IM), The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

MAIN OUTCOME

The primary outcome was per cent overall adherence to the 19-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Secondary outcomes included per cent adherence in checklist subcategories and assessing homogeneity of reporting quality across the individual journals.

RESULTS

Search results yielded 466 abstracts, 3 of which were later excluded as they were not RCTs. Analysis was performed on 463 abstracts (97 from NEJM, 66 from Annals IM, 100 from The Lancet, 100 from The BMJ, 100 from JAMA). Analysis of all scored items showed an overall adherence of 67% (95% CI 66% to 68%) to the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The Lancet had the highest overall adherence rate (78%; 95% CI 76% to 80%), whereas NEJM had the lowest (55%; 95% CI 53% to 57%). Adherence rates to 8 of the checklist items differed by >25% between journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the five highest impact general medical journals, there is variable and incomplete adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist of randomised trials, with substantial differences between individual journals. Lack of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist by high-impact medical journals impedes critical appraisal of important studies. We recommend diligent assessment of adherence to reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors to promote transparency and unbiased reporting of abstracts.

Guidelines for Reporting Medical Research: A Critical Appraisal

As a response to a low quality of reporting of medical research, guidelines for several different types of study design have been developed to secure accurate reporting and transparency for reviewers and readers from the scientific community. Herein, we review and discuss the six most widely accepted and used guidelines: PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, MOOSE, STARD, and SPIRIT. It is concluded that the implementation of these guidelines has led to only a moderate improvement in the quality of the reporting of medical research. There is still much work to be done to achieve accurate and transparent reporting of medical research findings.

Standardization of patient outcomes reporting in percutaneous nephrolithotomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There exist no global standards for defining patient outcomes in renal stone surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of outcomes in studies investigating percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and to propose standardized consensus definitions for common outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed for randomized controlled studies that investigated PCNL between 2002 and 2012. All outcomes reported were analyzed for each study. Each article was examined to identify the definition of each reported patient outcome. Various aspects of patient outcomes were presented to a panel of 85 experts in a Delphi process consisting of three rounds. The experts were asked to select options that they believed would best describe each outcome. Finally, we composed recommendations for definition of the most common outcomes reported in PCNL studies.

RESULTS

Eighty-three RCTs were included in the review of patient outcomes. Stone-free rate (55, 63.9%), length of stay (47, 56.6%), complication rate (44, 53.0%), and changes in hemoglobin (40, 48.2%) were the most frequently reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of PCNL. Only 24/53 (45.3%) studies had a formal definition of stone-free status. Only 31/40 (77.5%) studies, which reported change in hemoglobin, had a unit of measurement; however, 22/40 (55.0%) did not report the timing of postoperative hemoglobin measurement. A set of recommendations for defining patient outcomes in PCNL is presented for the 15 most commonly reported outcomes in PCNL.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variations and underspecification exist in the definition and reporting of outcomes in PCNL. We propose recommendations for the definition of outcomes based on a review of the literature and expert opinion. Standardization of outcome definition and reporting will improve the quality of urologic research.

Preventive home visits for mortality, morbidity, and institutionalization in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Home visits for older adults aim to prevent cognitive and functional impairment, thus reducing institutionalization and mortality. Visitors may provide information, investigate untreated problems, encourage medication compliance, and provide referrals to services.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases including CENTRAL and Medline searched through December 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials enrolling community-dwelling persons without dementia aged over 65 years. Interventions included visits at home by a health or social care professional that were not related to hospital discharge.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Outcomes were pooled using random effects.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality, institutionalization, hospitalization, falls, injuries, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, quality of life, and psychiatric illness.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies with 28642 participants were included. Home visits were not associated with absolute reductions in mortality at longest follow-up, but some programs may have small relative effects (relative risk = 0.93 [0.87 to 0.99]; absolute risk = 0.00 [-0.01 to 0.00]). There was moderate quality evidence of no overall effect on the number of people institutionalized (RR = 1.02 [0.88 to 1.18]) or hospitalized (RR = 0.96 [0.91 to 1.01]). There was high quality evidence for number of people who fell, which is consistent with no effect or a small effect (odds ratio = 0.86 [0.73 to 1.01]), but there was no evidence that these interventions increased independent living. There was low and very low quality evidence of effects for quality of life (standardised mean difference = -0.06 [-0.11 to -0.01]) and physical functioning (SMD = -0.10 [-0.17 to -0.03]) respectively, but these may not be clinically important.

CONCLUSIONS

Home visiting is not consistently associated with differences in mortality or independent living, and investigations of heterogeneity did not identify any programs that are associated with consistent benefits. Due to poor reporting of intervention components and delivery, we cannot exclude the possibility that some programs may be effective.