Adverse Event Reporting Quality in Cancer Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: A Systematic Review

Background

Immunotherapy has become one of the most important breakthroughs in cancer treatment. Consequently, there have been more immuno-oncology (IO) clinical trials for various cancers in recent decades. However, the quality of such trials in reporting adverse events (AE), especially immune-related AE (irAE), has not been comprehensively evaluated.

Methods

We evaluated the harm reporting quality of IO trials. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify all head-to-head phase II and III clinical trials assessing cancer immunotherapy published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. Publications were assessed using a 16-point harm reporting quality score (HRQS) derived from the 2004 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension. The characteristics associated with improved reporting quality were identified with linear regression.

Results

A total of 123 publications were included. The mean HRQS was 11.1 (range, 5-14). The most common poorly reported items were harms addressed in the title (2%), AE collection methodology (3%), the statistical approach for analyzing harms (11%), and the irAE onset patterns and management (adequately reported in 14% and 33% of publications, respectively). The harm information was well described in the publications’ Results and Discussion sections (89-99%). The multivariable regression model revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (30<IF<60 vs. IF<30, P=0.021) and phase III clinical trial (phase III vs. phase II, P=0.023) were independent predictors of higher quality score.

Conclusion

Our findings show that AE reporting in IO randomized trials is suboptimal. Efforts should be made to improve harm reporting and to standardize reporting practices. Improvements in AE reporting would permit more balanced assessment of interventions and would enhance evidence-based IO practice.

Virological measures and factors associated with outcomes, and missing outcome data in HIV clinical trials: a methodological study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the definition of HIV virological outcomes in the literature and factors associated with outcomes and missing outcome data.

METHODS

We conducted a methodological review of HIV RCTs using a search (2009-2019) of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.Only full-text, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that measured virological outcomes in people living with HIV, and published in English were included.We extracted study details and outcomes. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with a viral threshold ≤50 copies/mL and linear regression to identify factors associated with missing outcome data.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5847 articles; 180 were included. A virological outcome was the primary outcome in 73.5% of studies. 89 studies (49.4%) used virological success. The remaining used change in viral load (VL) (33 studies, 18.3%); virological failure (59 studies, 32.8%); or virological rebound (9 studies, 5.0%). 96 studies (53.3%) set the threshold at ≤50 copies/mL; and 33.1% used multiple measures.Compared with government and privately funded studies, RCTs with industry funding (adjusted OR 6.39; 95% CI 2.15 to 19.00; p<0.01) were significantly associated with higher odds of using a VL threshold of ≤50 copies/mL. Publication year, intervention type, income level and number of patients were not associated with a threshold of ≤50 copies/mL. Trials with pharmacological interventions had less missing data (β=-11.04; 95% CI -20.02 to -1.87; p=0.02).

DISCUSSION

Country source of funding was associated with VL threshold choice and studies with pharmacological interventions had less missing data, which may in part explain heterogeneous virological outcomes across studies. Multiple measures of VL were not associated with missing data. The development of formal guidelines on virological outcome reporting in RCTs is needed.

Douglas Altman's 2009 Grand Lecture: Can we trust our literature?

Recent studies of the medical literature have revealed numerous and serious problems. Errors in the design, methods and interpretation of studies can frequently be identified. A huge hidden problem is publication bias, the tendency for positive articles to be published, while negative articles are either not written or submitted. This can systematically lead to an overestimation of the value of treatments, of diagnostic or prognostic studies. Even more worrisome is selective reporting: only a subset of a wide array of tested hypotheses are presented (the ones that turned out to be positive with significance testing). This is particularly true for secondary endpoints and subgroup findings, but even the primary endpoints of trials have been modified when publications are compared to protocols. The peer-review process is fallible. Even if it were strengthened, reviewers cannot examine what is not reported. Hence many problems can only be mitigated with better reporting. Numerous initiatives have proposed guidelines to promote transparent reporting, but progress is slow.

Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, but the reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology remains unclear. We conducted a systematic survey of the literature to assess the reporting quality of QI studies and factors associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

We searched Medline for publications of QI studies from 2016 to 16 April 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently screened citations and assessed reporting quality using a 31-item modified Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, 2nd edition (SQUIRE 2.0) checklist. We reported the number (percentage) of studies that reported each item and their corresponding 95% CIs. We used Poisson regression to explore factors associated with reporting quality, namely, journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0, declaration of funding sources, year of publication and number of authors. The results were reported as incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% CI.

RESULTS

Of 1921 citations, 336 were eligible; among them, we randomly selected 100 articles to assess reporting quality. The mean (standard deviation) number of SQUIRE 2.0 items adhered to was 22.0 (4.5). Percentage of articles reporting each item varied from 26% to 100%. Journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0 (IRR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21, p=0.015), declaration of funding sources and increasing number of authors were significantly associated with better reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology is inadequate. Endorsing the SQUIRE 2.0 guideline is a step that journals can implement to enhance the completeness of reporting.

Towards improving the quality of assistive technology outcomes research

BACKGROUND

The Assistive Technology Device Outcomes Research (ATDOR) checklist was developed as a reporting guideline for researchers to enhance the quality of research in this field. The checklist contains 13 items that cover outcome domains unique to assistive technology devices (ATDs). The ATDOR was intended to be an adjunct to existing publication guidelines for outcomes research.

PURPOSE

The aim of this investigation was to examine the ability of the ATDOR checklist to identify strengths and weaknesses in ATD outcomes research publications that may not be detected using another publication guideline designed for outcomes research.

METHODS

Twenty original ATD outcome studies were scored using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, and the ATDOR in two evaluation rounds. In the first round, articles were scored using the TIDieR alone. In the second round, they were scored using the TIDieR and ATDOR together. The difference in percentage scores between the two evaluation rounds was examined using the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test for paired data.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage scores between the two evaluation rounds (Wilcoxon statistic = 10, Z = -3.547, p<.000).

CONCLUSION

When used alongside the TIDieR, the ATDOR adds significant value to evaluations of reporting quality on assistive technology outcomes research. As this field continues to grow, researchers are invited to join in efforts to standardise reporting to promote healthier outcomes for ATD users.Implications for rehabilitationReporting guidelines that evaluate research studies enhance their reporting quality and promote healthier outcomes for ATD users.The Assistive Technology Device Outcomes Research (ATDOR) checklist was shown to be a useful tool for achieving a minimum standard of reporting in the field of assistive technology.As the field of assistive technology continues to explore different methodologies, ongoing efforts to develop and update reporting guidelines are necessary in order to capture the future needs of this research area.

The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study

Introduction

Pilot and feasibility trials are conducted to determine feasibility or to collect information that would inform the design of a larger definitive trial. Clear progression criteria are required to determine if a definitive or main trial is feasible and how it should be designed. We sought to determine how often progression criteria are reported and the associated factors.

Methods

We conducted a methodological review of protocols for pilot randomised trials published in three journals that publish research protocols (BMJ Open, Trials, Pilot and Feasibility Studies), using a PubMed search (2013–2017). We extracted bibliometric information including the country in which the study was conducted, source of funding, type of intervention, use of a primary feasibility outcome, sample size reporting, and justification. We used generalised linear models to determine the factors associated with reporting progression criteria.

Results

Our search retrieved 276 articles, of which 49 were not eligible. We included 227 articles. Overall, 45/227 (19.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.8–25.6) reported progression criteria. Protocols published in more recent years were significantly associated with higher odds of reporting progression criteria (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.40; 95% CI 1.03–1.92; p = 0.034). Pilot trials from Europe (aOR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08–0.48; p < 0.001) and the rest of the world (aOR 0.05; 95% CI 0.01–0.18; p < 0.003) compared to North America were significantly associated with lower odds of reporting progression criteria. Journal, source of funding, sample size, intervention type, and having a primary outcome related to feasibility were not significantly associated with reporting progression criteria.

Conclusion

Progression criteria are not often explicitly stated in protocols of pilot trials leaving room for varied interpretation of findings. The development of formal guidance for progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials is warranted.

Magnitude and causes of first-line antiretroviral therapy regimen changes among HIV patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) has markedly decreased the morbidity and mortality due to HIV/AIDS. ART regimen change is a major challenge for the sustainability of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment program. This is found to be a major concern among HIV/AIDS patients in a resource-limited setting, where treatment options are limited.

Objectives

The aim of this review is to generate the best available evidence regarding the magnitude of first-line antiretroviral therapy regimen change and the causes for regimen change among HIV patients on ART in Ethiopia.

Methods

The reviewed studies were accessed through electronic web-based search strategy from PubMed Medline, EMBASE, Hinari, Springer link and Google Scholar. Data were extracted using Microsoft Excel and exported to Stata software version 13 for analyses. The overall pooled estimation of outcomes was calculated using a random-effect model of DerSimonian–Laird method at 95% confidence level. Heterogeneity of studies was determined using I² statistics. For the magnitude of regimen change, the presence of publication bias was evaluated using the Begg’s and Egger’s tests. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in the Prospero database with reference number ID: CRD42018099742. The published methodology is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=99742.

Results

A total of 22 studies published between the years 2012 and 2018 were included. Out of 22 articles, 14 articles reported the magnitude of regimen change and consisted of 13,668 HIV patients. The estimated national pooled magnitude of regimen change was 37% (95% CI: 34, 44%; Range: 15.1–63.8%) with degree of heterogeneity (I²), 98.7%; p-value < 0.001. Seventeen articles were used to identify the causes for first-line antiretroviral therapy regimen change. The major causes identified were toxicity, 58% (95% CI: 46, 69%; Range: 14.4–88.5%); TB co-morbidity, 12% (95% CI: 8, 16%; Range: 0.8–31.7%); treatment failure, 7% (95% CI: 5, 9%; Range: 0.4–24.4%); and pregnancy, 5% (95% CI: 4, 7%; Range: 0.6–11.9%).

Conclusions

The original first-line regimen was changed in one-third of HIV patients on ART in Ethiopia. Toxicity of the drugs, TB co-morbidity, treatment failure, and pregnancy were the main causes for the change of the first-line regimen among HIV patients on antiretroviral therapy.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

The reporting of harms in publications on randomized controlled trials funded by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique," a French academic funding scheme

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Accurate information on harms arising from medical interventions is essential for assessing benefit-risk ratios. Since 2004, there has been an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for reporting harms data in publications on randomized clinical trials. The objective of our study was to assess the quality of this reporting from academic randomized clinical trials on drugs.

METHODS

We searched for articles on randomized clinical trials funded between 2004 and 2008 by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique." We included all published randomized clinical trials that assessed drugs. Harm-related data were extracted and compared with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension, and the space in the articles devoted to harms data was measured.

RESULTS

In total, 37 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. The median harm score was 9/18. In 73.0% of the randomized clinical trials, the reporting of adverse events was selective. Less than 50% of articles provided information on reasons for drug discontinuation that were related to adverse events. The score and the space allocated to harms were higher in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs randomized clinical trials, while the median proportion of the space in the results section allocated to harms was 16.8%. In 67.6% of the articles, the space allocated to the authors' list and affiliations was greater than the space in the results section allocated to descriptions of harms. No significant improvement in the score or the space allocation was observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of harms in French academic drug randomized clinical trials is suboptimal; moreover, this shortcoming is a critical barrier to evaluating the benefit-risk ratio of drug randomized clinical trials. Thus, the authors should be encouraged to adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To allow for correct evaluation of clinical trial results, readers require comprehensive, clear, and highly transparent information on the methodology used and the results obtained. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the field of HIV/AIDS.

METHODS

We searched for original articles on RCTs of ART developed in the field of HIV/AIDS in PubMed database by 5 April 2016. Searched articles were divided into three groups based on the revision year in which the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were published: Period 1 (1996-2001); Period 2 (2002-2010); and Period 3 (2011-2016). We evaluated the articles using the reporting rates of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist, five items in the protocol deviation, and the three items in the ethics.

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles were extracted and included in this study. Many of the reporting rates calculated using the CONSORT 2010 checklist showed a significantly increasing trend over the successive periods (65% in Period 1, 67% in Period 2, 79% in Period 3; p < 0.0001). The items with reporting rates < 50% were "the presence or absence of a protocol change and the reason for such a change," "randomization and blinding," and "where the full trial protocol can be accessed." Reporting rates of deviations were as low as < 30%, while the reporting rates for patient compliance were the highest (>80% in Period 3) among the five items. The reporting rates for obtaining informed consent and approval by the ethics committee or institutional review board were high (>88%), regardless of the time period assessed.

CONCLUSION

In terms of representative RCT articles in the field of HIV/AIDS, the reporting rate of the items defined by CONSORT was approximately 70%, improving over the successive CONSORT statement revision periods.

A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results

BACKGROUND

Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time.

RESULTS

In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R ² = 0.02, p = 0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R ² = 0.01, p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Framing of research question using the PICOT format in randomised controlled trials of venous ulcer disease: a protocol for a systematic survey of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Although venous ulcers have a great social and economic impact, there is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support appropriate management for this disease. Framing the research question using the Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome; Time frame (PICOT) format in RCTs can improve the quality of the research design.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how the PICOT format is used to frame a research question in reports of RCTs of venous ulcer disease and to determine the factors associated with better adherence to the PICOT format in framing the research question.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will conduct a systematic survey of RCTs on venous ulcers published in the National Institute of Health, PubMed database between January 2009 and May 2016. We will include all RCTs addressing therapeutic intervention for venous ulcer disease involving human subjects, and published in the English language. The selection process will be carried out in duplicate by two independent investigators. First, titles and abstracts will be screened, then full-text articles. We will examine whether the five elements of the PICOT format are used in formulating the research question and give a score between 0 and 5. The primary outcome will be the proportion of studies that have adequately reported all five PICOT elements.

DISSEMINATION

This will be the first survey to assess how the PICOT format is used to frame research questions on the management of venous ulcers in reports of RCTs. On completion, this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed biomedical journal for publication and the findings will also be presented at scientific conferences.

Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of Intravenous and Invasive Pain Treatments: An ACTTION Systematic Review

Thorough assessment and reporting of adverse events (AEs) facilitates a detailed understanding of a treatment's risk-benefit profile. Although the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2004 statement provides recommendations regarding AE reporting, adherence to these standards is often inadequate. We investigated AE reporting in clinical trials of intravenous and invasive pain treatments published in 6 major anesthesiology and pain journals between 2000 to 2003 and 2006 to 2012. We examined whether AE reporting improved after publication of the 2004 CONSORT recommendations and also comprehensively reviewed AE assessment using the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) AE reporting recommendations. No improvement was found overall in CONSORT harms reporting scores from pre- to postpublication of the CONSORT recommendations, with only 5 of 10 fulfilled on average. AE reporting assessed using the ACTTION coding manual was generally inadequate, and 8% of articles failed to report any AE information at all. Anesthesiology and pain journals were similar in AE reporting quality, although industry-sponsored trials reported more AE information than nonindustry sponsored trials. Improvement is needed in AE reporting in analgesic clinical trials. The CONSORT checklist and ACTTION AE recommendations can assist investigators and editors in improving clinical trial transparency and quality.

PERSPECTIVE

This systematic review of AE reporting in intravenous and invasive pain treatment trials shows that little improvement has been made since the 2004 CONSORT harms reporting guidelines. Better assessment and reporting of treatment AEs is necessary to understand the full clinical effect of intravenous and invasive treatments.

Comparative Safety and Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events Associated With Efavirenz Use in First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

Efavirenz (EFV) is widely used for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive individuals, but there are concerns about the risk of adverse neuropsychiatric events. We systematically reviewed the safety of EFV in first-line therapy.

METHODS

Four databases were searched until October 2014 for randomized trials comparing EFV against non-EFV-based regimens for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive adults and children. The primary outcome was drug discontinuation as a result of any adverse event. Relative risks and proportions were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-two trials were included for review. A lower relative and absolute risk of discontinuations due to adverse drug reactions was seen with EFV compared to nevirapine. The relative and absolute risk of discontinuation was greater for EFV compared with low-dose EFV, rilpivirine, tenofovir, atazanavir, and maraviroc. The relative risk of discontinuation was greater for EFV compared with dolutegravir and raltegravir, but absolute risks were not significantly different. There was no difference in the risk of any severe clinical adverse events for any comparison. With the exception of dizziness, fewer than 10% of patients exposed to EFV experienced any other specific type of neuropsychiatric event. No suicides were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that over 90% of patients remained on an EFV-based first-line regimen after an average follow-up time of 78 weeks. The relative risk of discontinuations due to adverse events was higher for EFV compared with most other first-line options, but absolute differences were less than 5% for all comparisons.

Incidence and risk factors for tenofovir-associated renal toxicity in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of highly active antiretroviral therapy utilization, the association of renal impairment with treatment toxicity is more prevalent. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) side effects include renal toxicity.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of renal damage in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients treated with TDF and to identify associated potential risk factors.

SETTING

A public university tertiary 450-beds hospital in Spain.

METHOD

Retrospective, longitudinal observational study that included adult HIV-1-infected patients treated with TDF. Patient´s treated with TDF from January 2010 to December 2012 were included. Patient follow-up started when initiating treatment with TDF up until either end of treatment or end of study (July 31, 2013). The estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated using the four-variable modification of diet in renal disease. Renal toxicity was classified as moderate [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 ml/min] or severe (eGFR < 30 ml/min). The incidence rate for moderate and severe renal insufficiency was calculated as number of cases per 1000 patient-year. A univariate analysis and binary logistic regression was carried out in order to identify risk factors associated with renal toxicity by using the forward stepwise method (likelihood ratio)

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Incidence rate for moderate and severe renal insufficiency (RI) RESULTS: 451 patients were included in the study. The incidence rate of moderate RI was 29.2 cases per 1000 person-year (95% CI 22.1-36.3), whereas the incidence of severe RI was 2.2 cases per 1000 person-year (95% CI 0.3-4.1). Multivariate analysis confirmed an independent association with the risk of kidney damage for age (OR 1.08 95% CI 1.05-1.12), time on treatment with TDF (OR 1.16 95% CI 1.04-1.30), baseline creatinine (OR 49.80 95% CI 7.90-311.92) and treatment with NNRTIs (OR 0.45 95% CI 0.24-0.83).

CONCLUSION

Mild to moderate renal failure is a frequent complication during treatment with TDF although severe renal impairment is scarce. Risk factors include age, duration of treatment with TDF, elevated baseline creatinine levels, and treatment with protease inhibitor boosted with ritonavir combinations.

Failure or success of search strategies to identify adverse effects of medical devices: a feasibility study using a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Research has indicated that adverse effects terms are increasingly prevalent in the title, abstract or indexing terms of articles that contain adverse drug effects data in MEDLINE and Embase. However, it is unknown whether adverse effects terms are present in the database records of articles that contain adverse effects data of medical devices, and thus, to what extent the development of an adverse effects search filter for medical devices may be feasible.

METHODS

A case study systematic review of a medical device was selected. The included studies from a systematic review of the safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) for spinal fusion were used in the analysis. For each included study, the corresponding database record on MEDLINE and Embase was assessed to measure the presence or absence of adverse effects terms in the title, abstract or indexing. The performance of each potential adverse effects search term was also measured and compared.

RESULTS

There were 82 publications (49 studies) included in the systematic review with 51 of these indexed on MEDLINE and 55 on Embase. Ninety-four percent (48/51) of the records on MEDLINE and 95% (52/55) of the records on Embase contained at least one adverse effects related search term. The wide variety of adverse effects terms included in the title, abstract or indexing of bibliographic records, and the lack of any individual high-performing search terms suggests that a combination of terms in different fields is required to identify adverse effects of medical devices. In addition, the most successful search terms differed from the most successful terms for identifying adverse drug effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The search filters currently available for adverse drug effects are not necessarily useful for searching adverse effects data of medical devices. The presence of adverse effects terms in the bibliographic records of articles on medical devices, however, indicates that combinations of adverse effects search terms may be useful in search strategies in MEDLINE and Embase. The results, therefore, suggest that not only a search filter for the adverse effects of medical devices is feasible, but also that it should be a research priority.

What do we really know about the safety of tai chi?: A systematic review of adverse event reports in randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the frequency and quality of adverse event (AE) reports in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tai chi (TC).

DATA SOURCES

Electronic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE and additional databases from inception through March 2013 of English-language RCTs. Search terms included tai chi, taiji, and tai chi chuan. Data were independently extracted by 2 investigators.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all available RCTs that were published in English and used TC as an intervention. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of studies were reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA EXTRACTION

Eligible RCTs were categorized with respect to AE reporting: no mention of protocol for monitoring AEs or reports of AEs, and reports of AEs either with or without explicit protocol for monitoring AEs.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There were 153 eligible RCTs identified; most targeted older adults. Only 50 eligible trials (33%) included reporting of AEs; of these, only 18 trials (12% overall) also reported an explicit AE monitoring protocol. Protocols varied with respect to the rigor of systematic monitoring in both the TC and comparison groups. Reported AEs were typically minor and expected and primarily musculoskeletal related (eg, knee and back pain); no intervention-related serious AEs were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

TC is unlikely to result in serious AEs, but it may be associated with minor musculoskeletal aches and pains. However, poor and inconsistent reporting of AEs greatly limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the safety of TC.

A cross-sectional analysis of HIV and hepatitis C clinical trials 2007 to 2010: the relationship between industry sponsorship and randomized study design

BACKGROUND

The proportion of clinical research sponsored by industry will likely continue to expand as federal funds for academic research decreases, particularly in the fields of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C (HCV). While HIV and HCV continue to burden the US population, insufficient data exists as to how industry sponsorship affects clinical trials involving these infectious diseases. Debate exists about whether pharmaceutical companies undertake more market-driven research practices to promote therapeutics, or instead conduct more rigorous trials than their non-industry counterparts because of increased resources and scrutiny. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry, which allows investigators to fulfill a federal mandate for public trial registration, provides an opportunity for critical evaluation of study designs for industry-sponsored trials, independent of publication status. As part of a large public policy effort, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) recently transformed the ClinicalTrials.gov registry into a searchable dataset to facilitate research on clinical trials themselves.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 477 HIV and HCV drug treatment trials, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 October 2007 to 27 September 2010, to study the relationship of study sponsorship with randomized study design. The likelihood of using randomization given industry (versus non-industry) sponsorship was reported with prevalence ratios (PR). PRs were estimated using crude and stratified tabular analysis and Poisson regression adjusting for presence of a data monitoring committee, enrollment size, study phase, number of study sites, inclusion of foreign study sites, exclusion of persons older than age 65, and disease condition.

RESULTS

The crude PR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.94, 1.45). Adjusted Poisson models produced a PR of 1.13 (95% CI 0.82, 1.56). There was a trend toward mild effect measure modification by study phase, but this was not statistically significant. In stratified tabular analysis the adjusted PR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.78, 1.68) among phase 2/3 trials and 1.06 (95% CI 0.50, 2.22) among phase 4 trials.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant relationship was found between industry sponsorship and use of randomization in trial design in this cross-sectional study. Prospective studies evaluating other aspects of trial design may shed further light on the relationship between industry sponsorship and appropriate trial methodology.

Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research

Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40-89% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies-animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.

Adherence to CONSORT Adverse Event Reporting Guidelines in Randomized Clinical Trials Evaluating Systemic Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review

Purpose

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance was extended in 2004 to provide a set of 10 specific and comprehensive guidelines regarding adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Limited data exist regarding adherence to these guidelines in publications of oncology RCTs.

Methods

All phase III RCTs published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed using a 16-point AE reporting quality score (AERQS) based on the 2004 CONSORT extension. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality.

Results

A total of 325 RCTs were reviewed. The mean AERQS was 10.1 on a 16-point scale. The most common items that were poorly reported were the methodology of AE collection (adequately reported in only 10% of studies), the description of AE characteristics leading to withdrawals (15%), and whether AEs are attributed to trial interventions (38%). Even when reported, the methods of AE collection and analysis were highly heterogeneous. The multivariable regression model revealed that industry funding, intercontinental trials, and trials in the metastatic setting were predictors of higher AERQS. The quality of AE reporting did not improve significantly over time and was not better among articles published in journals with a high impact factor.

Conclusion

Our findings show that some methodologic aspects of AE collection and analysis were poorly reported. Given the importance of AEs in evaluating new treatments, authors should be encouraged to adhere to the 2004 CONSORT guidelines regarding AE reporting.

Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review

OBJECTIVES

To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening.

DESIGN

Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges.

DATA SOURCES

For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events.

RESULTS

Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening--overdiagnosis and false positive findings--were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.

Reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials in periodontology: a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Reporting of adverse events is of paramount importance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to guide the implementation of new therapeutic approaches in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of adverse events reporting in RCTs published in the periodontal literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two authors (CMF and NNG) searched the PubMed and LILACS electronic databases independently and in duplicate to identify RCTs published in periodontology from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012. Reporting quality in RCTs was assessed with reference to the 2004 CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Differences in adverse events reporting between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs were also determined. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to determine the extent of inter-reviewer agreement. Fischer's exact test was used to assess differences in reporting between the two samples.

RESULTS

The analysis included 246 publications. One hundred twenty-four of 990 (13%) items and 223 of 1460 (15%) items were adequately reported in publications from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012 respectively. Three checklist topics were significantly better reported in the 2011-2012 sample; two recommendations were better reported in non-industry-funded trials in publications from both periods.

CONCLUSION

Improvement and standardization of adverse events reporting in periodontology are needed.

Adverse event assessment, analysis, and reporting in recent published analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations

The development of valid and informative treatment risk-benefit profiles requires consistent and thorough information about adverse event (AE) assessment and participants' AEs during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a 2004 extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommending the specific AE information that investigators should report, there is little evidence that analgesic RCTs adequately adhere to these recommendations. This systematic review builds on prior recommendations by describing a comprehensive checklist for AE reporting developed to capture clinically important AE information. Using this checklist, we coded AE assessment methods and reporting in all 80 double-blind RCTs of noninvasive pharmacologic treatments published in the European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN® from 2006 to 2011. Across all trials, reports of AEs were frequently incomplete, inconsistent across trials, and, in some cases, missing. For example, >40% of trials failed to report any information on serious adverse events. Trials of participants with acute or chronic pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials typically provided more and better-quality AE data than trials involving pain-free volunteers or trials that were not industry sponsored. The results of this review suggest that improved AE reporting is needed in analgesic RCTs. We developed an ACTTION (Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks) AE reporting checklist that is intended to assist investigators in thoroughly and consistently capturing and reporting these critically important data in publications.

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

Background

Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies.

Methods

We undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Our search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies.

Conclusion

Reporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update using more stringent methodology and also investigating sponsorship of device studies.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 4, 2010) and Web of Science (August 2011). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors identified potentially relevant papers, and a decision about final inclusion was made by all authors. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight papers were included. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14 to 1.35), harms results RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.54 to 2.27) and conclusions RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.44) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Ten papers reported on sponsorship and effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data. The results were heterogeneous; five papers found larger effect sizes in industry sponsored studies compared with non-industry sponsored studies and five papers did not find a difference in effect size. Only two papers (including 120 device studies) reported separate data for devices and we did not find a difference between drug and device studies on the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.23). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment and follow-up. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.65), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.

Improving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyond

An extensive and growing number of reviews of the published literature demonstrate that health research publications have frequent deficiencies. Of particular concern are poor reports of randomised trials, which make it difficult or impossible for readers to assess how the research was conducted, to evaluate the reliability of the findings, or to place them in the context of existing research evidence. As a result, published reports of trials often cannot be used by clinicians to inform patient care or to inform public health policy, and the data cannot be included in systematic reviews. Reporting guidelines are designed to identify the key information that researchers should include in a report of their research. We describe the history of reporting guidelines for randomised trials culminating in the CONSORT Statement in 1996. We detail the subsequent development and extension of CONSORT and consider related initiatives aimed at improving the reliability of the medical research literature.

Patient-reported symptoms on the antiretroviral regimen efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir

Most patients (80-90%) newly diagnosed with HIV are started on the antiretroviral regimen efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF). Existing studies of patient tolerability, however, are limited. We compared symptom experiences of patients on EFV/FTC/TDF, and the subsequent impact on health-related quality of life, with those of patients on other combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Veterans Aging Cohort Study from February 2008 to August 2009 to compare the symptom experiences of patients on EFV/FTC/TDF vs. other cART, unadjusted and then adjusted for treatment characteristics, and comorbid disease severity. We then assessed the association between EFV/FTC/TDF use and health-related quality of life. Among the 1,759 patients in our analytic sample, EFV/FTC/TDF use was associated with fewer symptoms than was other cART. The use of EFV/FTC/TDF was independently associated with health-related quality of life, and this association was at least partially explained by symptom burden.

The reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials of hypertension using the CONSORT criteria for harm reporting

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of harms in hypertension clinical trials identified from the Cochrane Database using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for harms reporting. Forty-one hypertension trials were included in the study. On average trials reported less than half of the items recommended by the CONSORT extension for harms (mean 9.83 items; 95% confidence interval = 8.06, 11.60). Trialists need to address the perceived shortcomings in measurement, analysis, and reporting of harms data so that the available trial data can be considered as a balanced and reliable source of evidence.

Reporting clinical research: guidance to encourage accurate and transparent research reporting

To encourage accurate, complete, and transparent reporting of research studies we provide a brief overview of generic guidelines for reporting the main types of clinical research: randomised trials, observational studies in epidemiology, and systematic reviews. These and many other guidelines developed to help authors to achieve the highest standards in their research publications are available on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network website (www.equator-network.org).

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials.The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative set up to advance high quality reporting of health research studies; it promotes good reporting practices including the wider implementation of reporting guidelines. EQUATOR provides free online resources http://www.equator-network.org supported by education and training activities and assists in the development of robust reporting guidelines. This paper outlines EQUATOR's goals and activities and offers suggestions for organizations and individuals involved in health research on how to strengthen research reporting.

Meta-analysis as the core of evidence-based behavioral medicine: tools and pitfalls of a statistical approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Meta-analyses have a significant impact on clinical decision-making. In behavioral medicine, they are regularly used to derive clinical practice guidelines. Owing to an increasing complexity of data integration methods used, their interpretation has become a challenge to clinicians and researchers. This review aims to provide an accessible introduction to recent advances in the methodology and reporting style of quantitative reviews within the field of behavioral medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Meta-analytical findings are sensitive to the precise methods used. State-of-the-art criteria for reporting of clinical trials and meta-analyses have been put forward. Further adaptations of these criteria result from recent meta-analyses of the placebo effect in clinical trials. There is a need to carefully develop and evaluate methods to deal with patient dropout and missing data. Useful methods to evaluate diagnostic test accuracy and meta-analytically evaluate direct and indirect treatment comparisons have recently been developed.

SUMMARY

In the interdisciplinary field of behavioral medicine, meta-analyses are applied to evaluate interventions, diagnostic instruments, and procedures, and to derive evidence-based treatment recommendations. Criteria to improve reporting quality and methods to control for potential biases have been adapted to meet the requirements of research in behavioral medicine today.

Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely

Complete, accurate and transparent reporting is an integral part of responsible research conduct. However, many studies have shown that health research publications frequently lack crucial information. Reporting guidelines like the CONSORT Statement help to improve the quality of research reports. Unfortunately, their uptake by journals and authors is still limited and does not maximize their potential. The EQUATOR Network, a new international initiative, leads the effort to promote transparent reporting of research and the use of reporting guidelines. It provides online resources and training relating to the reporting of health research, and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines (www.equator-network.org). Poor reporting practices can be decreased only through close collaboration of all parties involved in research and its publication; EQUATOR can facilitate the process.

A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research

Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. This paper presents a collection of tools and guidelines available on the EQUATOR website (http://www.equator-network.org) that have been developed to increase the accuracy and transparency of health research reporting.