You Can't See What You Can't See: Transparency in RCT Reporting, and the Role of the CONSORT Checklist

Psychoeducational group interventions for adults diagnosed with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder: a scoping review of feasibility, acceptability, and outcome measures

INTRODUCTION

Although psychoeducational group interventions are increasingly used for adults diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a comprehensive review focused on the feasibility and acceptability indicators of these interventions remains lacking. Furthermore, although previous research has explored various aspects of psychoeducation for ADHD, such as its definition and approaches, limited research has focused on the synthesis for outcome measures and patients' experiences related to these interventions. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the existing evidence reported on psychoeducational group interventions for adults diagnosed with ADHD. The objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of feasibility indicators, acceptability, and outcome measures used in psychoeducational group interventions.

METHOD

A comprehensive structured literature search on the topic was performed in seven bibliographic databases, and the resulting records were independently screened, and their data extracted by two reviewers. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-S) to ensure the transparency and rigor of this scoping review.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 7510 records. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. These included studies were conducted in European countries and the United States. Among these, six studies used a randomized control design, one an open feasibility trial, and one a pre-post intervention design. All the studies reported some feasibility and acceptability indicators. While all the studies reported on the severity of symptoms of ADHD as an outcome measure, some also reported on outcomes related to psychological or mental-health problems, quality of life, changes in knowledge regarding ADHD, or the level of self-esteem, functioning, and impairment.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review revealed that psychoeducational group interventions are generally acceptable for patients in terms of patient satisfaction with the group intervention. All included studies reported some feasibility indicators, with some reporting good attendance and relatively low dropout rates. Most studies reported positive effects on ADHD and mental health symptoms, suggesting that these interventions are beneficial for adults with ADHD. However, several gaps exist regarding the reporting on the feasibility indicators, acceptability, and outcome measures employed across studies.

Quality reporting of randomized controlled trials on SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure: a comprehensive assessment

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide clinicians with the best evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention, and complete and transparent trial reports help to critically assess and use trial results. The objective of our study was to assess the quality of reporting in RCTs of sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure (HF) and identify factors associated with improved reporting quality. Two researchers conducted a comprehensive search in four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane). The quality of each report was assessed using a 25-point Overall Quality Score (OQS) based on the guidelines provided in the 2010 Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement. We included a total of 58 relevant RCTs. The median OQS in the 2010 CONSORT statement was 15 (range 7.5-24). The missing items were primarily found in the 'Methods' and 'Results' sections of the 2010 CONSORT statement. Multivariate regression modeling revealed that a more recent publication year, high impact factor, and large sample size were significant predictors of OQS improvement. The findings suggest that the overall quality of reported RCTs of SGLT2 inhibitors in HF is unsatisfactory, which reduces their potential usefulness.

From registration, protocol to report: are COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China consistent? A systematic review of clinical trial registry and literature

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review of registered COVID-19-related randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in mainland China and evaluate the transparency of reporting through comparison of registrations, protocols and full reports.

DESIGN

Systematic review of trial registrations and publications.

DATA SOURCES

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry and EU Clinical Trial Register were accessed on 1 February 2022. Publications were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, CNKI.net and Wanfangdata from 10 February 2022 to 12 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible trials were COVID-19 related RCTs carried out in mainland China. Observational studies, non-randomised trials and single-arm trials were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data from registrations, publications and performed risk of bias assessment for trial reports. Information provided by registrations and publications was compared. The findings were summarised with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The number of eligible studies was 415. From these studies 20 protocols and 77 RCT reports were published. Seven trials published both protocol and RCT full report. Between registrations and publications, discrepancy or omission was found in sample size (7, 35.0% for protocols and 47, 61.0% for reports, same below), trial setting (13, 65.0% and 43, 55.8%), inclusion criteria (12, 60.0% and 57, 74.0%), exclusion criteria (10, 50.0% and 54, 70.1%), masking method (9, 45.0% and 35, 45.5%) and primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement (14, 70.0% and 51, 66.2%). Between protocols and full reports, 5 (71.4%) reports had discrepancy in primary outcome or time frame of primary outcome measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancy among registrations, protocols and reports revealed compromised transparency in reporting of COVID-19-related RCTs in mainland China. The importance of trial registration should be further emphasised to enhance transparent RCT reporting.

Status, reporting completeness and methodological quality of pilot randomised controlled trials in acupuncture: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

To date, there has been a lack of knowledge about the status, reporting completeness and methodological quality of pilot trials in the acupuncture field. Thus, this systematic review protocol aims to: (1) investigate publication trends and aspects of feasibility evaluated in acupuncture pilot trials; (2) identify the proportion of acupuncture pilot trials that lead to definitive trials and (3) assess the reporting completeness and methodological quality of pilot trials in acupuncture.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Studies of acupuncture pilot randomised controlled trials published from 2011 to 2021 will be retrieved in seven databases in January 2022, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. The methodological quality and reporting completeness of all included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias 2.0 tool (RoB 2) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, respectively. For the primary analysis, publication trends, aspects of feasibility and the proportion of pilot trials that lead to definitive trials will be analysed. A quantitative analysis of the methodological quality and reporting completeness of the included trials will be implemented by calculating the percentage of items reported in each domain of RoB 2 and CONSORT. The secondary analysis will adopt a regression analysis to identify factors associated with the reporting completeness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this study. This study is planned to be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.