Outcome reporting bias in randomized-controlled trials investigating antipsychotic drugs

Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Dissemination and outcome reporting biases are a significant problem in clinical research, with far-reaching implications for both scientific understanding and clinical decision-making. This study investigates the prevalence of dissemination- and outcome reporting biases in registered interventional malaria research.

METHODS

All malaria interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2020 were identified. Subsequently, publications that matched the registration were searched. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of registered studies that resulted in subsequent publication of study results, the concordance between registered outcomes, and reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes were compliance with WHO standards for timely publication (issued in 2017) of summary study results in the respective trial registry (within 12 months of study completion) or peer-reviewed publication (within 24 months of study completion) was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 579 trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 544 met the inclusion criteria. Notably, almost 36.6% of these trials (199/544) were registered retrospectively, with 129 (23.7%) registered after the first patient enrolment and 70 (12.9%) following study completion. Publications were identified for 351 out of 544 registered trials (64.5%), involving 1,526,081 study participants. Conversely, publications were not found for 193 of the 544 registrations (35.5%), which aimed to enrol 417,922 study participants. Among these 544 registrations, 444 (81.6%) did not meet the WHO standard to post summary results within 12 months of primary study completion (the last visit of the last subject for collection of data on the primary outcome), while 386 out of 544 registrations (71.0%) failed to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of primary study completion. Discrepancies were noted in the reported primary outcomes compared to the registered primary outcomes in 47.6% (222/466) of the published trials, and an even higher discordance rate of 73.2% (341/466 publications) for secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-dissemination remains a significant issue in interventional malaria research, with most trials failing to meet WHO standards for timely dissemination of summary results and peer-reviewed journal publications. Additionally, outcome reporting bias is highly prevalent across malaria publications. To address these challenges, it is crucial to implement strategies that enhance the timely reporting of research findings and reduce both non-dissemination and outcome reporting bias.

Outcome Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials Researching Disease-Modifying Therapy in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Outcome reporting bias occurs when publication of trial results is dependent on clinical significance, thereby threatening the validity of trial results. Research on immunomodulatory drugs in multiple sclerosis has thrived in recent years. We aim to comprehensively examine to what extent outcome reporting bias is present in these trials and the possible underlying factors.

METHODS

We identified clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov after September 2007 and completed before the end of 2018. Information about study design, type of funding, and primary and secondary outcome measures was extracted from the registry. Timing of registration in relation to study initiation and subsequent amendments to the planned outcomes were reviewed. Publications related to these trials were identified in several bibliographic databases using the trial registration number. Registered primary and secondary outcomes were recorded for each trial and compared with outcomes in the publication describing the main outcomes of the trial.

RESULTS

A search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified 535 eligible registered clinical trials; of these, 101 had a matching publication. Discrepancies between registered and published primary and secondary outcomes were found in 95% of the trials, including discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes in 26 publications. Forty-four percent of the published secondary outcomes were not included in the registry. A similar proportion of registered and nonregistered reported primary efficacy outcomes were positive (favoring the intervention). Nonindustry-funded and open-label trials in MS were more prone to selective primary outcome reporting, although these findings did not reach statistical significance. Only two-thirds of the trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov before the trial start date, and 62% of trials made amendments in registered outcomes during or after the trial period.

DISCUSSION

Selective outcome reporting is prevalent in trials of disease-modifying drugs in people with MS. We propose methods to diminish the occurrence of this bias in future research.

Correcting for outcome reporting bias in a meta-analysis: A meta-regression approach

Outcome reporting bias (ORB) refers to the biasing effect caused by researchers selectively reporting outcomes within a study based on their statistical significance. ORB leads to inflated effect size estimates in meta-analysis if only the outcome with the largest effect size is reported due to ORB. We propose a new method (CORB) to correct for ORB that includes an estimate of the variability of the outcomes' effect size as a moderator in a meta-regression model. An estimate of the variability of the outcomes' effect size can be computed by assuming a correlation among the outcomes. Results of a Monte-Carlo simulation study showed that the effect size in meta-analyses may be severely overestimated without correcting for ORB. Estimates of CORB are close to the true effect size when overestimation caused by ORB is the largest. Applying the method to a meta-analysis on the effect of playing violent video games on aggression showed that the effect size estimate decreased when correcting for ORB. We recommend to routinely apply methods to correct for ORB in any meta-analysis. We provide annotated R code and functions to help researchers apply the CORB method.

Assessment of consistency between peer-reviewed publications and clinical trial registrations in nursing journals

BACKGROUND

The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.

AIMS

The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.

RESULTS

A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.

Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research note is to share a technique for the identification of spin bias that we developed as part of a living systematic review on the cardiovascular testing of e-cigarette substitution for cigarette smoking. While some researchers have remarked on the subjective nature of ascertaining spin bias, our technique objectively documents forms of spin bias arising from the misrepresentation of nonsignificant findings and from the omission of data.

RESULTS

We offer a two-step process for the identification of spin bias consisting of tracking data and findings and recording of data discrepancies by describing how the spin bias was produced in the text. In this research note, we give an example of the documentation of spin bias from our systematic review. Our experience was that nonsignificant results were presented as causal or even as significant in the Discussion of studies. Spin bias distorts scientific research and misleads readers; therefore it behooves peer reviewers and journal editors to make the effort to detect and correct it.

Inconsistent Outcome Reporting in Heart Failure Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may report outcomes different from those prespecified on trial-registration websites, protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs). This study sought to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of heart failure (HF) RCTs that report outcomes different from those prespecified.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE via PubMed was searched to include phase II-IV HF RCTs in 9 high-impact journals from 2010 to 2020. Outcomes reported in trial publications were compared with prespecified outcomes in protocols, registration websites and SAPs. We used the χ² or Fisher exact test to analyze correlations between trial characteristics and inconsistencies. Among 216 trials, 32 inconsistencies were observed in 28 trials (13.0%). Among 32 inconsistencies, 2 (6.3%) pertained to omission of prespecified primary outcomes, 4 (12.5%) to omission of prespecified secondary outcomes, 2 (6.3%) to changing prespecified primary outcomes to secondary outcomes, and 2 (6.3%) to changing prespecified secondary outcomes to primary outcomes. Of the inconsistencies, 3 (9.4%) pertained to addition of new primary outcomes, 17 (53.1%) to addition of new secondary outcomes, and 2 (6.3%,) to changes in the timing of assessment of primary outcomes. The majority of the inconsistencies favored statistically significant findings; 78 (36.1%) were registered retrospectively. Single-center recruitment was associated with outcome inconsistencies (β = -0.14; 95% CI, -0.22 - -0.01; P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

More than 1 in 10 trials reported outcomes inconsistent with those specified in trial registration websites, SAPs and protocols. An action plan is warranted to minimize selective reporting and improve transparency.

Factors associated with reporting of the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) core outcome set domains in randomized trials on falls in older people: a citation analysis and correlational study

Background

Core outcome sets are advocated as a means to standardize outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reduce selective outcome reporting. In 2005, the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) published a core outcome set identifying five domains that should be measured and reported, at a minimum, in RCTs or meta-analysis on falls in older people. As reporting of all five domains of the ProFaNE core outcome set has been minimal, we set out to investigate factors associated with reporting of the ProFaNE core outcome set domains in a purposeful sample of RCTs on falls in older people.

Methods

We conducted a systematic citation analysis to identify all reports of RCTs focused on falls in older people that cited the ProFaNE core outcome set between October 2005 and July 2021. We abstracted author-level, study-level, and manuscript-level data and whether each domain of the ProFaNE core outcome set was reported. We used penalized LASSO regression to identify factors associated with the mean percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported.

Results

We identified 85 eligible reports of RCTs. Articles were published between 2007 and 2021, described 75 unique RCTs, and were authored by 76 unique corresponding authors. The percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported ranged from 0 to 100%, with a median of 40% and mean (standard deviation, SD) of 52.2% (25.1). RCTs funded by a non-industry source reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs without a non-industry funding source (estimated mean difference = 17.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–33.2). RCTs examining exercise (15.4%; 95% CI 1.9–28.9) or multi-component/factorial (17.4%; 95% CI 4.7–30.1) interventions each reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs examining other intervention types.

Conclusions

We found that RCTs funded by at least one non-industry source, examining exercise or multi-component/factorial interventions, reported the highest percentages of ProFaNE core outcome set domains. Findings may help inform strategies to increase the impact of the ProFaNE core outcome set. Ultimately, this may lead to enhanced knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of interventions to prevent and/or manage falls in older people.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06642-w.

Casting New Light on Statistical Power: An Illuminating Analogy and Strategies to Avoid Underpowered Trials

Current standards for methodological rigor and trial reporting underscore the critical issue of statistical power. Still, the chance of detecting most effects reported in randomized controlled trials in medicine and other disciplines is currently lower than winning a toss of a fair coin. Here we propose that investigators who retain a practical understanding of how statistical power works can proactively avoid the potentially devastating consequences of underpowered trials. We first offer a vivid, carefully constructed analogy that illuminates the underlying relationships among 3 of the 5 essential parameters-namely, statistical power, effect size, and sample size-while holding the remaining 2 parameters constant (type of statistical test and significance level). Second, we extend the analogy to a set of critical scenarios in which investigators commonly miss detecting intervention effects due to insufficient statistical power. Third, we highlight effective pragmatic strategies for the design and conduct of sufficiently powered trials, without increasing sample size.

Selective outcome reporting across psychopharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Selective reporting impairs the valid interpretation of trials and leads to bias with regards to the clinical evidence. We aimed to examine factors associated with selective reporting in psychopharmacotherapy trials and thus enable solutions to prevent such selective reporting in the future.

METHODS

We retrieved all registry records of trials investigating medication for depressive, bipolar and psychotic disorders. Multivariate logistic regression was performed with selective reporting as outcome, and funding source, psychiatric disorder, year of study start date, participating centers, and anticipated sample size as explanatory variables, after testing for multicollinearity. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were calculated. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportions of newly added positive primary outcomes with the proportions of positive results in the overall group of primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 151 included trials (N = 94,303 participants), 21 (14%) showed irregularities between registered and published primary outcomes. Higher odds of such irregularities were associated with non-industry-funded RCTs (AOR 5.3; p = 0.014) and trials investigating major depressive disorder (AOR 12.7; p = 0.024) or schizophrenia (AOR 14.5; p = 0.016; Table 1).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate discrepancies between trial registrations and publications across RCTs investigating debilitating psychiatric disorders, especially in non-industry funded RCTs.

Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Tinnitus Trials: Comparison of Trial Registries With Corresponding Publications

Objectives: We aimed to study the prevalence of selective reporting of primary and secondary outcomes in tinnitus trials and to examine if selective reporting of outcome measures is influenced by the nature and direction of its results.

Background: Selective reporting of outcome measures has been reported in several biomedical fields and can influence the clinical usefulness and implementation of outcomes of clinical trials. It is reported as one of the obstacles in finding an effective intervention for tinnitus.

Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) was used to identify all registered interventional tinnitus trials up to December 2015. A standardized search was used to find corresponding publications up to March 2018. The prespecified outcomes in CT.gov were compared with the outcomes reported in corresponding publication(s). The effects of the (lack of) statistical significance of trial results and the effects of funding source on record adherence were evaluated. Changes in registration elements were assessed with the Archive site of CT.gov.

Results: We found corresponding publications for 60 (64.5%) of 93 eligible tinnitus trials registered in CT.gov. Of all the publications, five (7.5%) fully reported outcome measures entirely in line with the prespecified outcome measures. Discrepancies between the prespecified and reported outcomes were found in a total of 51 (76.1%) of the studies for primary outcomes, whereas 62 (92.5%) of the studies had discrepancies in secondary outcomes. In secondary outcomes, statistical significance of trial results influenced CT.gov record adherence. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of discrepancy in industry-funded [n = 98 (87.5%) discrepant outcomes] and non-industry funded trials [n = 172 (74.5%) discrepant outcomes] (p = 0.01). Finally, 15 (25.9%) trialists made modifications in registered outcome measures during or after the trial period.

Conclusion: Tinnitus trials suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias. Awareness of its presence must be raised to limit the obstacles of finding an effective intervention for tinnitus.

Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations

Researchers face many, often seemingly arbitrary, choices in formulating hypotheses, designing protocols, collecting data, analyzing data, and reporting results. Opportunistic use of "researcher degrees of freedom" aimed at obtaining statistical significance increases the likelihood of obtaining and publishing false-positive results and overestimated effect sizes. Preregistration is a mechanism for reducing such degrees of freedom by specifying designs and analysis plans before observing the research outcomes. The effectiveness of preregistration may depend, in part, on whether the process facilitates sufficiently specific articulation of such plans. In this preregistered study, we compared 2 formats of preregistration available on the OSF: Standard Pre-Data Collection Registration and Prereg Challenge Registration (now called "OSF Preregistration," http://osf.io/prereg/). The Prereg Challenge format was a "structured" workflow with detailed instructions and an independent review to confirm completeness; the "Standard" format was "unstructured" with minimal direct guidance to give researchers flexibility for what to prespecify. Results of comparing random samples of 53 preregistrations from each format indicate that the "structured" format restricted the opportunistic use of researcher degrees of freedom better (Cliff's Delta = 0.49) than the "unstructured" format, but neither eliminated all researcher degrees of freedom. We also observed very low concordance among coders about the number of hypotheses (14%), indicating that they are often not clearly stated. We conclude that effective preregistration is challenging, and registration formats that provide effective guidance may improve the quality of research.

Pharmacological treatment of acute-phase anorexia nervosa: Evidence from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Anorexia nervosa (AN) is the psychiatric disorder with the highest mortality rate, with a standard mortality ratio of 5.86. Despite the large use of psychotropic drugs in the clinical setting, Food and Drug Administration has not approved any psychoactive treatment for AN.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating psychopharmacological treatment in acute-phase AN.

METHODS

The present paper follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. An extensive literature search was performed. All RCTs enrolling patients with acute-phase AN, comparing at least one psychotropic drug with another drug, placebo, treatment-as-usual or no treatment were included. The main outcome was the effect of psychoactive drugs on body mass index (BMI); data on psychopathological outcomes were also collected when available.

RESULTS

A total of 19 RCTs met all specified criteria. Of these, 11 were excluded from quantitative analyses. Of the eight studies included in the meta-analyses, five reported data on BMI, showing no significant difference between olanzapine and placebo for weight recovery. No significant result was found for AN psychopathology, depressive and anxious symptoms for any of the molecules studied.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs published in this field display methodological biases, low sample sizes and short follow-up periods. Further research efforts are needed in this field as no evidence has been demonstrated for the use of any psychotropic drug in acute-phase AN neither for weight recovery, nor for comorbid psychiatric symptoms.

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.

Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals

BACKGROUND

In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Heart Journal) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%-57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%-85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%-12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%-47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%-2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%-67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%-60%) reported harms or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

Interventions to Improve Antimicrobial Stewardship for Older People in Care Homes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing has been reported in care homes. This may result in serious drug-related adverse events, Clostridium difficile colonization, and the development of antimicrobial resistance among care home residents. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing in nursing homes have been reported through clinical trials, but whether antifungal and antiviral prescribing and residential homes have been considered, or how outcomes were measured and reported in such interventions, remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

Our aims were to evaluate the effect of interventions to improve antimicrobial stewardship in care homes and to report the outcomes used in these trials.

METHODS

We searched 11 electronic databases and five trial registries for studies published until 30 November 2018. Inclusion criteria for the review were randomized controlled trials, targeting care home residents and healthcare professionals, providing interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing compared with usual care or other interventions. The Cochrane tools for assessing risk of bias were used for quality assessment. A narrative approach was taken because of heterogeneity across the studies.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies varied in terms of types of infection, key targets, delivery of interventions, and reported outcomes. In total, 27 outcomes were reported across the studies, with seven not prespecified in the methods. The interventions had little impact on adherence to guidelines and prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing; they appeared to decrease total antimicrobial consumption but were unlikely to have affected overall hospital admissions and mortality. The overall quality of evidence was low because the risk of bias was high across the studies.

CONCLUSION

The interventions had limited effect on improving antimicrobial prescribing but did not appear to cause harm to care home residents. The low quality of evidence and heterogeneity in outcome measurement suggest the need for future well-designed studies and the development of a core outcome set to best evaluate the effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship in care homes.

Side effect profile and comparative tolerability of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression in adults: protocol for a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We have recently compared all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of major depression. Here we present a protocol for a network meta-analysis aimed at extending these results, updating the evidence base and comparing all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of specific adverse events and tolerability in the acute treatment of major depression in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include all double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing one active drug with another or with placebo in the acute treatment major depression in adults. We will compare the following active agents: agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, clomipramine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone and vortioxetine. The main outcomes will include the total number of patients experiencing specific adverse events; experiencing serious adverse events; and experiencing at least one adverse event. Published and unpublished studies will be retrieved through relevant database searches, trial registries and websites; reference selection and data extraction will be completed by at least two independent reviewers. For each outcome we will undertake a network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence. We will use local and global methods to evaluate consistency. We will perform all analyses in R. We will assess the quality of evidence contributing to network estimates with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis web application.

DISCUSSION

This work will provide an in- depth analysis and an insight into the specific adverse events of individual antidepressants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019128141.

The rise of hospitalists: an opportunity for infectious diseases investigators

INTRODUCTION

Despite the essential role played by infectious diseases specialists in patient care, public health, cost-containment, and biomedical research, the field has a substantially higher percentage of vacant positions than other medicine sub-specialties. While much has been written about what this disturbing trend means for patient care, comparatively little attention has been focused on the dire implications for clinical research and the development of novel anti-infective therapy. Areas covered: We examine the ways that hospitalists and infectious disease specialists might collaborate to study emerging diagnostic platforms, novel antimicrobial agents, and strengthen antimicrobial stewardship programs to improve the delivery of high-quality health care. Through the use of PubMed, the manuscript reviews existing collaborations as well as those that might develop in the years to come. Expert commentary: In this paper, we propose potential strategies to confront this emerging problem, focusing on novel collaborations with the hospitalist - the specialist in inpatient medicine - to bolster the pipeline of funding for clinical infectious diseases investigators.

The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them)

In this review, the author discusses several of the weak spots in contemporary science, including scientific misconduct, the problems of post hoc hypothesizing (HARKing), outcome switching, theoretical bloopers in formulating research questions and hypotheses, selective reading of the literature, selective citing of previous results, improper blinding and other design failures, p-hacking or researchers' tendency to analyze data in many different ways to find positive (typically significant) results, errors and biases in the reporting of results, and publication bias. The author presents some empirical results highlighting problems that lower the trustworthiness of reported results in scientific literatures, including that of animal welfare studies. Some of the underlying causes of these biases are discussed based on the notion that researchers are only human and hence are not immune to confirmation bias, hindsight bias, and minor ethical transgressions. The author discusses solutions in the form of enhanced transparency, sharing of data and materials, (post-publication) peer review, pre-registration, registered reports, improved training, reporting guidelines, replication, dealing with publication bias, alternative inferential techniques, power, and other statistical tools.