Has the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in thoracic surgery improved?

Adherence to the CONSORT statement and extension for nonpharmacological treatments in randomized controlled trials of bariatric surgery: A systematic survey

Reporting is critical for establishing the value of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study evaluated the adherence of bariatric surgery RCT reporting to the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010 and its 2017 extension for non-pharmacologic treatments (NPT extension). We identified all RCTs comparing bariatric surgery with conservational therapy or alternative bariatric surgery up to June 30, 2020. Reporting quality was assessed using criteria developed from the CONSORT statement and the NPT extension and scored as a percentage. The factors associated with reporting quality were explored by univariate and multivariate analysis. In total, 102 RCTs of bariatric surgery were included. The median scores according to the CONSORT statement and NPT extension were 63.3 and 26.8 of a maximum possible 100, respectively. Two-thirds of NPT extension items were reported in less than 25% of the RCTs. The median score improved over time for the CONSORT statement but not the NPT extension. A higher CONSORT score was associated with publication in core clinical journals, protocol registration, and funding. No factors associated with the NPT extension score were identified. Substantial efforts are warranted from authors, journals, registration platforms, and funders to overcome the flaws in the reporting of bariatric surgery RCTs.

Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

PURPOSE

This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO.

METHODS

CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO.

RESULTS

Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R ² = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.