Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

A Bibliometric Analysis on Adherence to Reporting Standards for Endovascular Treatment of Chronic Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) involves a broad spectrum of therapies including many new and emerging techniques. To standardize the results of studies examining this pathology and to allow critical analysis and comparison between studies, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) recommended reporting standard guidelines for the endovascular management of CLTI in 2016. Research studies that do not adhere to complete reporting standards are often more ambiguous in impact and external validity, leading to bias and misinformation that has potentially damaging effects on clinical decision-making. We thus sought to examine adherence to and factors associated with noncompliance with these recommended guidelines.

METHODS

A literature database search was conducted to include all clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and retrospective comparative studies written in English examining the endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD)/CLTI from January 2020 to August 2022. Systematic reviews, case reports, and meta-analysis were excluded. The manuscripts were reviewed for adherence with the SVS guidelines (overall and by guideline subcategories based on demographics, treatment methods, and outcomes), and factors associated with this adherence were determined. These data were used to calculate descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-four manuscripts were identified from this time frame. On average, articles reviewed reported on 42.0% of the SVS reporting standards (range, 25.0-65.2%, Fig 1) with 74.1% of articles (n = 40) not adhering to at least 50.0% of the standards. Manuscripts most completely followed guidelines regarding "patient factors" and were least likely to demonstrate adherence to the description of CLTI and study complications. Within the guideline subcategories, complete adherence to guidelines was not demonstrated in any manuscript in stent trials, disease outcome measures, technical outcome measures, patient factors and critical limb ischemia description, and complete adherence rates within the other subcategories was low (range, 5.6-18.6%). Studies conducted within the United States and those with industry sponsorship were more likely to adhere to >50% of the reporting standards (P < 0.05). Journal impact factor, year of publication, and number of authors had no correlation to the percent adherence to guidelines in specific categories or adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to reporting standard guidelines for endovascular treatment of lower extremity PAD specifically outlined by the SVS is suboptimal regardless of the quality of the journal the research is published in. Increasing adherence to reporting standards to provide a framework for comparison of studies across techniques used should be prioritized by authors, journal editors, and vascular societies.

Exploration and evaluation of reporting quality of randomised controlled trials on blended learning in medical education

Aims/Background Blended learning has been a commonly adopted teaching mode in the medical education community in recent years. Many studies have shown that the blended learning mode is superior to the traditional teaching mode. Nonetheless, pinpointing the specific advantages provided by blended teaching methods is challenging, since multiple elements influence their effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate the reliability of the conclusions of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on blended learning in medical education by assessing their quality, and to provide suggestions for future related studies. Methods Two investigators searched PUBMED and EMBASE, and assessed RCTs related to medical blended learning published from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2021. The analysis of the overall quality of each report was based on the 2010 consolidated standard of reporting trials (CONSORT) Statement applying a 28-point overall quality score. We also conducted a multivariate assessment including year of publication, region of the trial, journal, impact factor, sample size, and the primary outcome. Results A total of 22 RCTs closely relevant to medical blended learning were eventually selected for study. The results demonstrated that half of the studies failed to explicitly describe at least 34% of the items in the 2010 CONSORT Statement. Medical blended learning is an emerging new teaching mode, with 95.45% of RCTs published since 2010. However, many issues that we consider crucial were not satisfactorily addressed in the selected RCTs. Conclusion Although the 2010 CONSORT Statement was published more than a decade ago, the quality of RCTs remains unsatisfactory. Some important items were inadequately reported in many RCTs such as sample size, blinding, and concealment. We encourage researchers who focus on the effects of blended learning in medical education to incorporate the guidelines in the 2010 CONSORT Statement when designing and conducting relevant research. Researchers, reviewers, and editors also need to work together to improve the quality of relevant RCTs in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 CONSORT Statement.

Adherence to CONSORT Guidelines and Reporting of the Determinants of External Validity in Clinical Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials: A Review of Trials Published in Four Major Journals between 2013 and 2015

Our primary objective was to determine the proportion of trials that report the number of patients assessed for eligibility before randomization. We performed the systematic retrieval and analysis of all phase II, III, and IV RCTs published between 2013 and 2015 in four high-impact-factor journals in the field of clinical oncology. Among 456 RCTs reviewed, 236 trials (51.8%) reported the number of patients assessed for eligibility. Among the 236 trials that reported the entire enrollment process, the reasons for patient exclusion could be found in 184 trials (78%). A flow diagram was presented in 452 trials (99.1%), and 98 trials (21.5%) included a discussion on generalizability. Reporting the parameters of external validity in medical oncology RCTs is challenging. Improving adherence to the 2010 CONSORT guidelines concerning the enrollment process could help clinicians and health policymakers establish to whom trial results apply.

Tumour Burden Reporting in Phase III Clinical Trials of Metastatic Lung, Breast, and Colorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

The initial tumour burden is a strong and well-known prognostic factor in oncology. A systematic review was performed to examine if and how the initial tumour burden is reported in phase III clinical trials in the most frequent and deadly cancers. Seventy trials were selected, which mostly included biologic agents. The identification of low-burden metastatic disease was performed in 28.6% of studies; it was a stratification factor for randomisation in only 25.7% of studies. In two studies, a significant imbalance between arms in patients with low-burden disease was revealed. Our findings emphasise the need for the better assessment of tumour burden in clinical trials.

Abstract

Background: Randomised phase III clinical trials represent a methodological milestone to select effective drugs against metastatic cancers. In this context, and particularly in the efficacy assessment of biologic drugs, the initial metastatic tumour burden is a strong prognostic factor. Methods: A systematic literature review of randomised, phase III, first-line, clinical trials in metastatic breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, published from 2016 to 2021, was performed. Three groups of variables were collected: identity-, method- (including tumour burden assessment) and outcome-related. Results: Seventy trials were selected. A large portion of studies (41.4%) focused on the effects of biologic agents (signal inhibitors and immuno-therapies). A definition of low-burden disease based predominantly on the number of involved organs was reported in 28.6% of studies. No explicit reference to oligo-metastatic disease was found either in inclusion/exclusion criteria or in final descriptive data analyses. Disease extent, heterogeneously defined, was a stratification factor for randomisation in only 25.7% of studies. In two studies, a significant imbalance between arms in patients with low-burden disease was revealed. Conclusions: Attention to initial tumour burden in designing future clinical trials (including the harmonisation of definitions and the reporting of eventual oligo-metastatic disease, complete estimates of tumour volume, and its consideration as a stratification factor) should be increased.

Reporting of abstracts in studies that used routinely collected data for exploring drug treatment effects: a cross-sectional survey

Background

In recent years, studies that used routinely collected data (RCD), such as electronic medical records and administrative claims, for exploring drug treatment effects, including effectiveness and safety, have been increasingly published. Abstracts of such studies represent a highly attended source for busy clinicians or policy-makers, and are important for indexing by literature database. If less clearly presented, they may mislead decisions or indexing. We thus conducted a cross-sectional survey to systematically examine how the abstracts of such studies were reported.

Methods

We searched PubMed to identify all observational studies published in 2018 that used RCD for assessing drug treatment effects. Teams of methods-trained collected data from eligible studies using pilot-tested, standardized forms that were developed and expanded from “The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data statement for pharmacoepidemiology” (RECORD-PE) statement. We used descriptive analyses to examine how authors reported data source, study design, data analysis, and interpretation of findings.

Results

A total of 222 studies were included, of which 118 (53.2%) reported type of database used, 17 (7.7%) clearly reported database linkage, and 140 (63.1%) reported coverage of data source. Only 44 (19.8%) studies stated a predefined hypothesis, 127 (57.2%) reported study design, 140 (63.1%) reported statistical models used, 142 (77.6%) reported adjusted estimates, 33 (14.9%) mentioned sensitivity analyses, and 39 (17.6%) made a strong claim about treatment effect. Studies published in top 5 general medicine journals were more likely to report the name of data source (94.7% vs. 67.0%) and study design (100% vs. 53.2%) than those in other journals.

Conclusions

The under-reporting of key methodological features in abstracts of RCD studies was common, which would substantially compromise the indexing of this type of literature and prevent the effective use of study findings. Substantial efforts to improve the reporting of abstracts in these studies are highly warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01482-9.

Unsatisfied Reporting Quality of Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Cancer

Background

More and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.

Methods

The PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.

Results

Of the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Immune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.

Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO).

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15.

REVIEW METHODS

Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095033.

Methods and Designs of Modern Breast Cancer Confirmatory Trials

Simple Summary

The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. In this study, we describe the methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials published between 2001 and 2020. We found that the quality of the evidence supporting new breast cancer drugs was improving over time, but that patient-relevant endpoints such as survival and quality of life remained unfrequently used as primary endpoints.

Abstract

Background: The benefit–risk assessments of new drugs for breast cancer (BC) face several challenges, as all stakeholders do not agree on the evidence bar required for market authorization, and by the fragmentation of breast cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to describe the changes in methods and designs of breast cancer confirmatory trials. Methods: All phase III randomized trials published between 2001 and 2020 and assessing systemic BC therapies were included. Trials’ main characteristics, endpoints, and statistical methods were collected using a standardized data extraction form. Results: A total of 347 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. While most older trials (79%) included all subtypes of breast cancer, most recent trials populations were limited to one large intrinsic BC subgroup (69%). The use of gatekeeping testing strategies increased dramatically from 9% to 71%. The use of overall survival (OS) as an endpoint in the trials increased over time, but its use as a primary endpoint remained infrequent. The inclusion of OS testing in a hierarchical sequence in case of positive testing of a tumor-centered or composite endpoint appeared to have become the new standard. Conclusion: Our findings indicate some improvements in the quality of the evidence-base supporting new breast cancer drugs. The rigorous assessment of patient-relevant endpoints has increased over time, but this improvement is mainly related to the analysis of OS as a secondary endpoint analyzed in a hierarchical sequence.

Focus on the expected quality of reporting in SBRT/radiosurgery prospective studies: how far have we come in 30 years?

Objectives:

We aimed at describing and assessing the quality of reporting in all published prospective trials about radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

Methods:

The Medline database was searched for. The reporting of study design, patients’ and radiotherapy characteristics, previous and concurrent cancer treatments, acute and late toxicities and assessment of quality of life were collected.

Results:

114 articles – published between 1989 and 2019 - were analysed. 21 trials were randomised (18.4%). Randomisation information was unavailable in 59.6% of the publications. Data about randomisation, ITT analysis and whether the study was multicentre or not, had been significantly less reported during the 2010–2019 publication period than before (respectively 29.4% vs 57.4% (p < 0.001), 20.6% vs 57.4% (p < 0.001), 48.5% vs 68.1% (p < 0.001). 89.5% of the articles reported the number of included patients. Information about radiation total dose was available in 86% of cases and dose per fraction in 78.1%. Regarding the method of dose prescription, the prescription isodose was the most reported information (58.8%). The reporting of radiotherapy characteristics did not improve during the 2010 s-2019s. Acute and late high-grade toxicity was reported in 37.7 and 30.7%, respectively. Their reporting decreased in recent period, especially for all-grade late toxicities (p = 0.044).

Conclusion:

It seems necessary to meet stricter specifications to improve the quality of reporting.

Advances in knowledge:

Our work results in one of the rare analyses of radiosurgery and SBRT publications. Literature must include necessary information to first, ensure treatments can be compared and reproduced and secondly, to permit to decide on new standards of care.

The reporting quality of split-mouth trials in orthodontics according to CONSORT guidelines: 2015-19

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) in orthodontic journals, and to identify factors associated with better reporting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven leading orthodontic journals were hand searched for SMTs published during 2015-19. The CONSORT 2010 guideline and CONSORT for within-person trial (WPT) extension were used to assess the trial reporting quality (TRQ) and WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ) of included SMTs, respectively. A binary score (0 or 1) was given to each item of the guidelines, and total scores were calculated for TRQ (score range, 0-32) and WRQ (score range, 0-15). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with TRQ and WRQ.

RESULTS

A total of 42 SMTs were included. The mean overall scores for TRQ and WRQ were 16.8 [standard deviation (SD) 7.1] and 5.6 (SD 2.3), respectively. Only 11 SMTs (26.2%) presented the rationale for using a split-mouth design. Key methodological items including random sequence generation (22/42, 52.4%), allocation concealment (9/42, 21.4%), and blinding (20/42, 47.6%) were poorly reported. Only six SMTs (14.3%) used a paired method for sample size calculation, and half (21/42, 50.0%) considered the dependent nature of data in statistical analysis. In multivariable analyses, higher TRQ and WRQ were both significantly associated with journal, reported use of CONSORT and funding status.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of SMTs in orthodontics has much room for improvement. Joint efforts from relevant stakeholders are needed to improve the reporting quality of SMTs and reduce relevant avoidable research waste.

Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review

BACKGROUND

In the modern tech-savvy era, scientific literature publication remains the optimal way to disperse knowledge, even if it has transformed from print to mostly electronic. With the new and improved publication methods, also come more scrutiny and analytic criticism of the scientific work. It becomes even more important in this context to rectify flawed scientific work responsibly. This present study was undertaken to help clarify the process and causes of retractions occurring in the dental community and analyse its reasons. Methodology. A total of 8092 PubMed indexed articles were scanned from the online libraries, and individually scanning for author details, place of study, subspecialty of research, funding, dates of original publication, and retraction notices issued along with journal specifics such as type and impact factors, country of publishing was compiled and analysed by two authors. The dataset was then collaboratively analysed using Panda's Library in Python software as an analysis tool for data preparation and for frequency analysis. The estimates were presented as mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

The present study had a compiled dataset of 198 articles after screening and revealed that maximum retractions of dentistry-related research originated from India (25.3%) and, on average, took 2.6 years to be issued a retraction notice. We also deciphered that the USA retracted maximum dental articles (34.8%), and plagiarism was cited as the most common (38.02%) reason for doing so. The present study also brought to light that there was a trend for lower impact factor-dental journals in retracting maximum articles, most of which were nonfunded (62.16%). The results signify that 63.78% of all retracted papers continued to be cited postretractions.

CONCLUSIONS

The retractions happening in the field of dental literature are currently too time-consuming and often unclear to the readers. The authors would like to conclude that the retracted papers were mostly from India and Spain mostly related to endodontics or prosthodontic research. All of this warrants the need for better scrutiny and reforms in the area.

A Review of Adherence and Predictors of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials

The statement on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) ensures transparency in the reporting of randomized trials. However, it is unclear if the statement has led to improvement in the quality of reporting of tuberculosis (TB) vaccine trials. We explored the quality of reporting of TB vaccine trials according to the latest version of the CONSORT statement, released in 2010. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in August 2019. We conducted screening, study selection, and data extraction in duplicate; and resolved differences through discussion. We assessed reporting to be adequate if trials reported at least 75% of the CONSORT 2010 items. We conducted a trend analysis to assess if there was improvement in reporting over time. We also used logistic regression to assess factors associated with adequate reporting. We included 124 trials in the analyses. The mean proportion of adherence was 67.3% (95% confidence interval 64.4% to 70.1%), with only 46 (37%) trials having adequate reporting. There was a significant improvement in the quality of reporting over time (p < 0.0001). Trials published in journals with impact factors between 10 and 20 were more likely to have adequate reporting (odds ratio 9.4; 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 67.8), compared to lower-impact-factor journals. Despite advances over time, the reporting of TB vaccine trials is still inadequate and requires improvement.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting according to the CONSORT statement in randomized controlled trials with glioblastoma patients

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the best evidence in oncology research. Glioblastoma is the most frequent and deadly primary brain tumor, affecting health-related quality of life. An important end point is patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There are no data regarding how well publications of glioblastoma RCTs report PROs. A specific PRO extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was created to improve the quality of reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to the CONSORT-PRO statement in reporting RCTs addressing the treatment of patients with glioblastoma. PRO analysis methodology was explored and criteria associated with higher quality of reporting were investigated.

Methods

From PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases, all phase 2 and 3 RCTs related to glioblastoma published between 1995 and 2018 were reviewed according to the CONSORT-PRO statements. An overall quality score on a 0 to 100 scale was defined based on these criteria and factors associated with this score were identified.

Results

Forty-four RCTs were identified as relevant according to predefined criteria. The median overall quality score was 26. No difference was observed regarding reporting quality over the years. CONSORT-PRO items concerning data collection and analysis were poorly reported. Thirty-four trials (77%) used longitudinal data. The most frequent statistical method for PROs analysis was the mean change from baseline (63%). Factors associated with improved overall quality score were the presence of a secondary publication dedicated to PROs results, the statement of any targeted dimensions, and when trials reported results using multiple methods.

Conclusion

Despite the importance of measuring PROs in patients with glioblastoma, employment of the CONSORT-PRO statement is poor in RCTs.

Net benefit in the presence of correlated prioritized outcomes using generalized pairwise comparisons: A simulation study

BACKGROUND

The prioritized net benefit (Δ) is a measure of the benefit-risk balance in clinical trials, based on generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) using several prioritized outcomes. Its estimation requires the classification as Wins or Losses of all possible pairs of patients, one from the experimental treatment (E) group and one from the control treatment (C) group. In this simulation study, we assessed the impact of the correlation between prioritized outcomes on Δ, its estimate, bias, size, and power.

METHODS

The theoretical Δ value was derived for the specific case of two correlated binary outcomes when a normal copula is used. Focusing on one efficacy and one toxicity outcome, two situations frequently met in practice were simulated: binary efficacy outcome with binary toxicity outcome, or time to event efficacy outcome with categorical toxicity outcome. Several scenarios of efficacy and toxicity were generated, with various levels of correlation.

RESULTS

When E was more effective than C, positive correlations were mainly associated with a decrease in the proportion of Losses, while negative correlations were associated with a decrease in the proportion of Wins on the toxicity outcome. This resulted in an increase of Δ ^ with the intensity of the positive correlation without adding any bias. Results were similar whatever the type of outcomes generated but led to power alteration.

CONCLUSION

Correlations between outcomes analyzed with GPC led to substantial but predictable modifications of Δ and its estimate. Correlations should be taken into consideration when performing sample size estimations in clinical trials.

More pilot trials could plan to use qualitative data: a meta-epidemiological study

Background

Pilot trials often use quantitative data such as recruitment rate and retention rate to inform the design and feasibility of a larger trial. However, qualitative data such as patient, healthcare provider, and research staff perceptions of an intervention may also provide insights for a larger trial.

Methods

As part of a larger study investigating the reporting of progression criteria in pilot studies, we sought to determine how often pilot studies planned to use qualitative data to inform the design and feasibility of a larger trial and the factors associated with plans to use qualitative data. We searched for protocols of pilot studies of randomized trials in PubMed between 2013 and 2017.

Results

We included 227 articles. Only 92 (40.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 34.1–47.2) reported plans to collect qualitative data. The factors associated with collecting qualitative data were large studies (defined as sample size ≥ 60; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.77; 95% CI 1.47–5.23; p = 0.002) and studies from Europe (aOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.68–8.88; p = 0.001) compared to North America and the rest of the world. Pilot trials with pharmacological interventions were less likely to plan to collect qualitative data (aOR 0.20; 95% CI 0.07–0.58; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Qualitative data is not used enough in pilot trials. Large pilot trials, pilot trials from Europe, and pilot trials of non-pharmacological interventions are more likely to plan for qualitative data.

Abstracts of published randomised controlled trials in Endodontics: Reporting quality and spin

AIMS

To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin. Spin refers to reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers.

METHODOLOGY

The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0 to 16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel-group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts, and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77 to 4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P=0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P=0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, among which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty-two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

Exploring failure of antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy for transplant recipients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Infections remain a threat for solid organ and stem cell transplant recipients. Antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy have improved survival of these patients; however, the failure rates of prophylaxis are not negligible. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the reasons behind failure of antimicrobial prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy.

SETTING

This systematic review included prospective randomised controlled trials and prospective single-arm studies.

PARTICIPANTS

The studies included were on prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy of opportunistic infections in transplant recipients. Studies were included from databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Embase published until October first 2018.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were breakthrough infections, adverse events leading to stopping of treatment, switching medication or dose reduction. Secondary outcome measures were acquired resistance to antimicrobials, antifungals or antivirals and death.

RESULTS

From 3317 identified records, 30 records from 24 studies with 2851 patients were included in the systematic review. Seventeen focused on prophylactic and pre-emptive treatment of cytomegalovirus and seven studies on invasive fungal infection. The main reasons for failure of prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy were adverse events and breakthrough infections, which were described in 54% (13 studies) and 38% (9 studies) of the included studies, respectively. In 25%, six of the studies, a detailed description of patients who experienced failure of prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy was unclear or lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that although failure is reported in the studies, the level of detail prohibits a detailed analysis of failure of prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy. Clearly reporting on patients with a negative outcome should be improved. We have provided guidance on how to detect failure early in a clinical setting in accordance to the results from this systematic review.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017077606.

Evaluating dose-limiting toxicities of MDM2 inhibitors in patients with solid organ and hematologic malignancies: A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Mouse double minute 2 protein (MDM2), a negative regulator of the p53 tumour suppressor gene, is frequently amplified in malignancies. MDM2 antagonists have shown efficacy in treating malignancies with MDM2 overexpression and can overcome chemoresistance in acute myeloid leukemia. We systematically evaluated the safety profile of MDM2 inhibitors in the treatment of solid organ and hematologic malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Medline and EMBASE from January 1947 to November 2018 for prospective clinical studies, in English or French, investigating any MDM2 inhibitor in pediatric or adult cancers, and reporting dose and toxicity outcomes. Primary outcome was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and secondary outcome was death.

RESULTS

The search yielded 493 non-duplicate citations. Eighteen studies of 10 inhibitors met inclusion criteria (total N = 1005 patients). Two-thirds of included studies did not define DLTs and the reporting of toxicities was highly variable. The most commonly reported DLTs were cytopenias, gastrointestinal toxicity, metabolic disturbances, fatigue and cardiovascular toxicity; there was one death attributed to treatment toxicity.

CONCLUSION

MDM2 antagonists have been studied in a variety of malignancies with toxicities similar to other commonly used chemotherapy agents and may represent a safe adjuvant treatment for further study in in acute leukemia.

Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.

DATA EXTRACTION

Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.

A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernias (VHs) often recur after surgical repair and subsequent attempts at repair are especially challenging. Rigorous research to reduce recurrence is required but such studies must be well-designed and report representative and comprehensive outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assesses methodological quality of non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair by systematic review.

METHODS

We searched the indexed literature for non-randomised studies of interventions for VH repair, January 1995 to December 2017 inclusive. Each prospective study was coupled with a corresponding retrospective study using pre-specified criteria to provide matched, comparable groups. We applied a bespoke methodological tool for hernia trials by combining relevant items from existing published tools. Study introduction and rationale, design, participant inclusion criteria, reported outcomes, and statistical methods were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty studies (17,608 patients) were identified: 25 prospective and 25 retrospective. Overall, prospective studies scored marginally higher than retrospective studies for methodological quality, median score 17 (IQR: 14-18) versus 15 (IQR 12-18), respectively. For the sub-categories investigated, prospective studies achieved higher median scores for their, 'introduction', 'study design' and 'participants'. Surprisingly, no study stated that a protocol had been written in advance. Only 18 (36%) studies defined a primary outcome, and only 2 studies (4%) described a power calculation. No study referenced a standardised definition for VH recurrence and detection methods for recurrence varied widely. Methodological quality did not improve with publication year or increasing journal impact factor.

CONCLUSION

Currently, non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair are methodologically poor. Clear outcome definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.

Quality of reporting and fragility index for randomized controlled trials in the vesicoureteral reflux literature: where do we stand?

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" methodology for examining the effects of clinical interventions, yet only 1% of urology literature employs this design. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement contains a standardized checklist of 37 items to be included when reporting RCTs to ensure transparency and completeness of information [2]. Despite the robust design of RCTs, the number of events can greatly change the significance of the results, which can be represented by the fragility index (FI).

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the quality of reporting of RCTs in the pediatric vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) literature using the 2010 CONSORT statement and, for studies with significant positive findings, to determine the FI as a measure of robustness of the results.

STUDY DESIGN

A comprehensive search was conducted through MEDLINE® and Embase® to identify RCTs in VUR literature from 2000 to 2016. Two reviewers independently selected articles, which were evaluated using the CONSORT checklist. An overall quality of reporting score (OQS) (%) was calculated by dividing the number of checklist items present in each study by the maximum possible score (34) and expressed as a percentage. Studies were classified as low (<40%), moderate (40-70%) and high quality (>70%) based on the modified assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Of the 2052 initial matches, 98% were excluded due to methodology or content, a further 28 studies were found not to meet inclusion criteria after full text review. The FI was calculated for the 7 studies that met inclusion criteria with significantly different results by manually adding events to the study groups until p>0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria. The mean OQS was 46+17% with 9 (41%) identified as low quality (score <40%), 11 (50%) as moderate (40-70%) and 2 (9%) as high quality (>70%). There was no significant difference in OQS between RCTs with a sample size > 100 (n=15) versus <100 patients (n=7) (45+17% vs. 47+17%, p=0.7). However, we noted a difference when we compared RCTs with biostatistician support (n=4) vs. those without (n=18) (59+20% vs. 43+15%, p<0.05). Seven studies reported significant positive results making calculation of FI possible. The mean FI was 5.8+5.1 indicating that most studies were fragile. There was no correlation between the OQS and FI.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The mean OQS of VUR RCTs was suboptimal (46%), with most studies having low FI scores indicating the instability of the findings. The only variable that significantly impacted the OQS was biostatistician support. Implementation of the CONSORT checklist with a minimum of 50% inclusion as a prerequisite for submission of manuscripts may improve the quality and transparency of reporting. Calculation of the FI could provide readers with an objective measure of robustness for the published trials, allowing for appropriate interpretation of the results.

The Benefit-Risk Balance of Nab-Paclitaxel in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The benefit-risk balance of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin versus gemcitabine assessed using generalized pairwise comparison was strongly positive. We sought to assess the benefit-risk balance of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine using the data of the MPACT trial, as it is an alternative to 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin.

METHODS

This statistical method allows for the simultaneous analysis of several prioritized outcomes. The first priority outcome was survival time (overall survival). The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the overall net benefit. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the consistency of the results according to possible patients' preferences.

RESULTS

In this trial, 861 patients received nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone. The overall net benefit favored strongly and significantly the combination group. When only large survival differences were considered clinically relevant, the net benefit was not in favor of the combination group.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall net benefit is a clinically intuitive way of comparing patients with respect to all important efficacy and toxicity outcomes. The nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination has a positive benefit-risk balance, but it might not be suitable for patients who would consider losing several months of survival to avoid a significant toxic event.

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.

Adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies in oncology journals: a cross-sectional review

Reporting guidelines (RG) aim to improve research transparency and ensure high-quality study reporting. Similarly, clinical trial registration policies aim to reduce bias in results reporting by ensuring prospective registration of all trial outcomes. Failure to adhere to quality standards documented in RGs may result in low-quality and irreproducible research. Herein, we investigate the adherence to common RGs and trial registration policies in 21 oncology journals. We surveyed the Instructions for Authors page for each of the included oncology journals for adherence to common reporting guidelines and trial registration policies. We corresponded with editors to determine accepted study types and cross-referenced this information with a journal's RGs and trial registration policies to calculate the per cent of journals that adhere to a specific guideline or policy. 76.2% (16/21) of oncology journals surveyed adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines for clinical trials while only 33.3% (7/21) adhere to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for observational studies. Similarly, 76.2% (16/21) of oncology journals adhere to clinical trial registration policies. We further demonstrate that journal adherence to RGs positively affects author reporting, despite adherence to trial registration policies showing no such benefit. Our results show that oncology journals adhere to RGs and trial registration policies at a higher rate than other specialties, but nonetheless show room for improvement. We conclude that oncology journal adherence to RGs and trial registration policies is encouraging, but nonetheless suboptimal. We recommend the adoption of RGs and trial registration policies by all oncology journals.

Meta-Research on Oncology Trials: A Toolkit for Researchers with Limited Resources

"Meta-research" is a discipline that investigates research practices. Meta-research on clinical trials is an attempt to summarize descriptive and methodological features of published or ongoing clinical trials, including aspects of their implementation, design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. In this type of investigation, the unit of analysis is a primary source of information about a clinical trial (e.g., published reports, study protocols, or abstracts), with meta-research being a second layer of information that summarizes what is known from various primary sources. After the formulation of the primary research question, the methodology of meta-research resembles that of other research projects, with predefined eligibility criteria, exposure variables, primary and secondary outcomes of interest, and an analysis plan. This type of study usually provides a high-level picture of the literature on a specific topic, always accompanied by a critical evaluation of the methodology and/or the quality of reporting of the studies included. Because relatively few resources are consumed to produce meta-research, these studies offer a great opportunity for clinical scientists working in settings with limited resources. In this article, we present the principles of designing and conducting meta-research and use our experience to suggest recommendations on how to perform and how to report this type of potentially very creative study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The term meta-research pertains to a type of study in which the unit of analysis is, in most cases, the publication of a clinical trial. This type of study usually provides a high-level picture of the literature on a specific topic, always accompanied by a critical evaluation of the methodology, design, and/or the quality of reporting of the studies included. Because relatively few resources are consumed to produce meta-research, these studies offer a great opportunity for clinical scientists who work in low-income countries. This article presents the principles of designing and conducting meta-research and proposes practical recommendations on how to perform and report this type of potentially very creative study.

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.

DESIGN

Methodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.

DATA SOURCES

Cancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.

RESULTS

We included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)).

CONCLUSIONS

When comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.

Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research

Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community.

The use of and adherence to CTCAE v3.0 in cancer clinical trial publications

Background

The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0 (CTCAE v3.0) was released in 2003, and has been widely used as the predominant set of toxicity criteria for cancer clinical trials and scientific meetings. However, the degree to which the elements of CTCAE v3.0 are followed in oncology publications has not been comprehensively evaluated.

Methods

We reviewed phase III randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapies, published between Jan 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013, to identify eligible studies that explicitly mentioned using CTCAE v3.0 as the toxicity criteria. A 10-point score based on adherence to CTCAE v3.0 was used to assess the studies. Multivariate linear regression was used to identify features associated with improved adherence.

Results

In total, 104 publications reporting data on 86,957 patients were included in this analysis. The mean total score for adherence to all four elements of CTCAE v3.0 was 4.03 on a 10-point scale (range, 1 to 9), with 16 publications (15%) having total scores ≤2. Highly heterogeneous and unstandardized adverse event terms were frequently used. In addition, Supra-ordinate terms, terms using ‘Other, specify’, and Grades were often used incorrectly. The multivariate regression model revealed that the absence of a placebo (P=0.003) and a higher total number of AE terms in the table (P<0.001) were independent predictors of a lower total score.

Conclusion

Given the importance of understanding the toxicity of new treatments, better adherence to CTCAE v3.0 should be encouraged to ensure the consistency and comparability of toxicity data across different studies.

An assessment of the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Background

We sought to assess the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Methods

We used generalized pairwise comparisons. This statistical method permits the simultaneous analysis of several prioritized outcome measures. The first priority outcome was survival time (OS). Differences in OS that exceeded two months were considered clinically relevant. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the net chance of a better outcome, which can be interpreted as the net probability for a random patient treated in the FOLFIRINOX group to have a better overall outcome than a random patient in the gemcitabine group.

Results

In this trial 342 patients received either FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine. The net chance of a better outcome favored strongly and significantly the FOLFIRINOX group (24.7; P<.001), suggesting a favorable benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine. The positive benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX was observed throughout all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Generalized pairwise comparisons are useful to perform a quantitative assessment of the benefit-risk balance of new treatments. It provides a clinically intuitive way of comparing patients with respect to all important efficacy and toxicity outcomes. Overall the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX was strongly positive.

A critical appraisal of the reporting quality of published randomized controlled trials in the fall injuries

To evaluate the quality of reporting in published randomized controlled trials (RTCs) in the field of fall injuries. The 188 RTCs published between 2001 and 2011, indexed in EMBASE and Medline databases were extracted through searching by appropriate keywords and EMTree classification terms. The evaluation trustworthiness was assured through parallel evaluations of two experts in epidemiology and biostatistics. About 40%-75% of papers had problems in reporting random allocation method, allocation concealment, random allocation implementation, blinding and similarity among groups, intention to treat and balancing benefits and harms. Moreover, at least 10% of papers inappropriately/not reported the design, protocol violations, sample size justification, subgroup/adjusted analyses, presenting flow diagram, drop outs, recruitment time, baseline data, suitable effect size on outcome, ancillary analyses, limitations and generalizability. Considering the shortcomings found and due to the importance of the RCTs for fall injury prevention programmes, their reporting quality should be improved.

Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Adult Patients with High-Grade Gliomas

BACKGROUND

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard to objectively assess the effect of treatments. To help improve the quality of RCTs, experts established a list of recommendations, the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. In this study, we evaluated the implementation of the CONSORT Statement in the field of high-grade gliomas in adult patients and looked for criteria associated with higher quality of RCTs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched all high-grade gliomas RCTs published in PubMed between January 1990 and December 2016. The quality of these RCTs was assessed by completing a modified CONSORT Score (CS).

RESULTS

Ninety-six published RCTs were identified. The median CS was 19.5 on a scale of 0-33. Items were not equally reported. Items regarding the method of randomization or the blinding were reported in less than 25% of RCTs. However, the CS has constantly improved over the years. Before the implementation of the CONSORT Statement in 1996, the median CS was 13, whereas it was 17 for the period 1996-2004 and 22 after 2005. A higher CS was observed when RCTs were published in a journal with an impact factor above 10 (p < .001) or after 2010 (p = .001), when the primary outcome was clearly defined (p < .001) and for RCTs that enrolled more than 200 patients (p = .004).

CONCLUSION

Although there has been a steady improvement in the CS over the years in the field of high-grade gliomas, a major effort must be made in the reporting methods for randomization and blinding.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study showed that the quality of reporting of randomized control trials (RCTs) concerning the treatment of high-grade gliomas is poor. Factors associated with a better quality of reports were identified and should be incorporated into the design of future RCTs. When clinicians read the results of RCTs, they should be aware of the possible inadequate reporting from these trials and take it into account for the management of their patients. This study identifies how RCTs can be improved in their reporting but also in their design, in order to advance care for patients with high-grade gliomas in the future.

Assessing reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in psychiatry: Adherence to CONSORT for abstracts: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is important as readers often make their first judgments based on the abstracts. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts published before and after the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guidelines.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to identify psychiatric RCTs published during 2005-2007 (pre-CONSORT) and 2012-2014 (post-CONSORT). Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts using a 18-point overall quality score (OQS) based on the CONSORT-A guidelines. Linear regression analysis was conducted to analyze factors associated with reporting quality.

RESULTS

Among 1,927 relevant articles, 285 pre-CONSORT and 214 post-CONSORT psychiatric RCT abstracts were included for analysis. The mean OQS improved from 6.9 (range: 3-13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7-7.2) to 8.2 (range: 4-16; 95% CI: 7.8-8.5) after the CONSORT-A guidelines. Despite improvement, methods of randomization, allocation concealment, and funding source remained to be insufficiently reported (<5%) even after the release of CONSORT-A. High-impact general medical journals, multicenter design, positive outcome, and structured abstracts were associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality in psychiatric RCT abstracts, although improved, remains suboptimal. To improve reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts, greater efforts by both investigators and journal editors are required to enhance better adherence to the CONSORT-A guidelines.

Navigating the highlights of phase III trials: a watchful eye on evidence-based radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence-based oncology. However, there is no exhaustive review describing the radiotherapy RTCs characteristics. The objective of the present study was to describe features of all phase III RCTs including at least a radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Requests were performed in the Medline database (via PubMed). The latest update was performed in April 2016, using the following MESH terms: 'clinical trials: phase III as topic', 'radiotherapy', 'brachytherapy', as keywords.

RESULTS

A total of 454 phase III RCTs were identified. Studies were mainly based on open (92.1%) multicenter (77.5%) designs, analyzed in intend to treat (67.6%), aiming at proving superiority (91.6%) through overall survival assessment (46.5%). Most frequently studied malignancies were head and neck (21.8%), lung (14.3%) and prostate cancers (9.9%). Patients were mainly recruited with a locally advanced disease (73.7%). Median age was 59 years old. Out of 977 treatment arms, 889 arms experienced radiotherapy, mainly using 3D-conformal radiotherapy (288 arms, 32.4%). Intensity-modulated techniques were tested in 12 arms (1.3%). The intervention was a non-cytotoxic agent addition in 89 studies (19.6%), a radiation dose/fractionation modification in 74 studies (16.3%), a modification of chemotherapy regimen in 63 studies (13.9%), a chemotherapy addition in 63 studies (13.9%) and a radiotherapy addition in 53 trials (11.7%). With a median follow-up of 50 months, acute all-grade and grade 3-5 toxicities were reported in 49.6% and 69.4% of studies, respectively. Radiotherapy technique, follow-up and late toxicities were reported in 60.1%, 74%, and 31.1% of studies, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Phase III randomized controlled trials featured severe limitations, since a third did not report radiotherapy technique, follow-up or late toxicities. The fast-paced technological evolution creates a discrepancy between literature and radiotherapy techniques performed in daily-routine, suggesting that phase III methodology needs to be reinvented.

Adherence to CONSORT Items in Randomized Controlled Trials of Integrative Medicine for Colorectal Cancer Published in Chinese Journals

BACKGROUND

The majority of studies of integrative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been published in Chinese journals. These studies indicate potential benefits, but concerns have been raised over the quality of trials published in Chinese journals. The CONSORT statement provides a guide for study reporting that has been endorsed by more than 400 international journals. Previous studies have used the CONSORT checklist to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

This study focused on RCTs of integrative and traditional medicine for CRC published in Chinese journals and assessed: (1) the overall quality of reporting with a focus on methodological aspects; (2) change over time; and (3) the influence of study funding, level of institution conducting the trial, rank of the journal, and the length of the article.

DESIGN

Searches of seven databases identified RCTs. Quality was assessed using CONSORT 2010 with adaptations to facilitate scoring. Additional codes were added for publication year, hospital rank, report length, and status of the journal. Scores of each checklist item, total scores, and scores for eight items associated with RCT methodology were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighty-one studies were included in the main analyses. The RCT methodology subgroup scores were significantly higher in studies: with public funding, conducted by authors from university hospitals, published in higher ranked journals, and in longer articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Few Chinese journals mention CONSORT in their author guidelines. In these RCTs on CRC better reporting of RCT methodology was associated with ranking of the journal as "core," public funding of the RCT, and first or correspondent author from a university hospital but the quality of reporting had not significantly improved in 15 years. As the volume of scientific information produced in China grows, it is imperative that there is growth in the quality of this information.

Quality of reporting for randomized controlled trials in the hypospadias literature: Where do we stand?

INTRODUCTION

To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the hypospadias literature using the 2010 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. It was hypothesized that hypospadias RCTs that contained clear descriptions of key methodological items, allocation concealment, blinding, and sample size justification would have higher overall quality of reporting scores (OQS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted through MEDLINE to identify RCTs in hypospadias surgical techniques and postoperative management during the period 1990-2014. Two reviewers independently selected articles, which were evaluated using the CONSORT checklist. An overall quality score (%) was calculated to assess the quality of reporting. In addition, a methodological index score out of 4 was calculated based on the following items: use of intention to treat/sample size justification, allocation concealment, specification of randomization type, and blinding of outcome assessors.

RESULTS

Of the 76 initial results, 39 (51%) were excluded due to their predominant focus on anesthesia. After full-text screening, 10 (13%) citations were further excluded because they were case control studies or did not focus on hypospadias techniques, resulting in 27 (36%) studies included for analysis. The mean overall quality score was 37 ± 12% and a median of 36% (range: 14-61%). Fifteen (56%) studies were identified as low quality (score <40%) and 12 (44%) as moderate quality (40-70%). No studies were classified as high quality (>70%). Hypospadias RCTs published between 2007 and 2014 versus those reported before 2007 (44 ± 9% vs 33 ± 11%, P = 0.01), RCTs with a sample size >100 patients versus those <100 (47 ± 8% vs 36 ± 11%, P = 0.01), RCTs that disclosed having received funding versus those that did not (56 ± 4% vs 38 ± 10%, P < 0.01) and RCTs that had proof of biostatistician/epidemiologist support versus those that did not (58 ± 5% vs 36 ± 11%, P = 0.01) had a higher mean OQS. The number of articles that met specific 2010 CONSORT criteria is illustrated in Summary Fig.

DISCUSSION

It was found that the contemporary hypospadias literature continues to suffer from suboptimal reporting standards. There seems to be an improvement in the OQS for studies published after 2007 and those with larger sample sizes, usually >100 patients. Nevertheless, none of the studies obtained high quality of reporting (OQS >70%) as per the CONSORT statement checklist. The inadequacies in reporting were related to sample size justifications, randomization method, allocation concealment strategy, blinding, description of subjects lost to follow-up and Intention To Treat (ITT) analysis. These findings were consistent with the poor quality of reporting observed in other surgical fields.

CONCLUSIONS

The current overall quality score in hypospadias literature is suboptimal and efforts must be made to improve quality.

A systematic review of adverse event reporting in companion animal clinical trials evaluating cancer treatment

OBJECTIVE To evaluate methods used to ascertain, define, and report adverse events (AEs) in companion animal clinical trials involving cancer treatment. DESIGN Systematic review. SAMPLE English-language articles describing prospective clinical trials involving dogs and cats with naturally occurring cancer published in peer-reviewed journals between 2008 and 2014. PROCEDURES Reports were identified via MEDLINE and CAB database searches combined with a hand-searching strategy. General article characteristics were abstracted and summarized. Data for AE reporting were collected with a 14-item checklist adapted from the 2004 CONSORT extension for reporting harms. Study characteristics associated with the AE reporting checklist score were identified by means of linear regression analysis. RESULTS 168 articles with data for 6,132 animals were included. Standardized terminology was significantly more likely to be used to describe AEs for trials that included chemotherapy (92/115 [80.0%]) than for trials that did not (16/53 [30.2%]). Median AE reporting checklist score was 5 out of 14 (range, 0 to 12). Poorly reported items included methods and time frame of AE ascertainment, AE data analysis, and reasons for treatment discontinuation and death. Trials with industry funding, a single-arm design, and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with a significantly higher quality of AE reporting. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Reporting of adverse events in veterinary clinical trials evaluating cancer treatment was selective and heterogeneous. Harms associated with cancer treatments could be underestimated because of suboptimal collection and reporting of AE data. Findings supported the adoption of a higher standard for AE surveillance and reporting in veterinary patients.

Abstracts reporting of HIV/AIDS randomized controlled trials in general medicine and infectious diseases journals: completeness to date and improvement in the quality since CONSORT extension for abstracts

Background

Sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. We aimed at comparing reporting quality of RCTs in HIV/AIDS medicine before and after the publication of the 2008 CONSORT extension for abstracts and to investigate factors associated with better reporting quality.

Methods

We searched PubMed/Medline for HIV/AIDS RCTs published between 2006–07 (Pre-CONSORT) and 2014–15 (Post-CONSORT) in 40 leading general medicine and infectious diseases journals. Two investigators extracted data and scored abstracts. The primary outcome was the adjusted mean number of items reported among the 17 required. Proportions of abstracts reporting each of 17 items were considered as secondary outcome. The adjustment was done for journal field, CONSORT endorsement, abstract format, type of intervention, journal impact factor and authorship. This study received no funding.

Results

The adjusted mean number of reported items was 7.2 (95 % CI 6.6–7.7) in pre-CONSORT (n = 159) and 7.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 7.3–8.4) in post-CONSORT (n = 153) (mean difference 0.7; 95 % CI 0.1–1.2). Journal high impact factor (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.16; 95 % CI 1.83–2.54), abstract with 13 authors or more (1.39; 95 % CI 1.07–1.79) and non-pharmacological intervention (1.19; 95 % CI 1.03–1.37) were independent factors for better reporting quality. There were significant improvements in reporting on participants, randomization, outcome results, registration and funding; regression for author contact; and no change for other items: title, design, interventions, objective, primary outcome, blinding, number randomized, recruitment, number analyzed, harms and conclusions.

Conclusions

After the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts, the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts in general medicine and infectious diseases journals has suboptimally improved. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for abstract are needed to improve the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0243-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publication status of contemporary oncology randomised controlled trials worldwide

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the extent of selective publication in contemporary oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs) worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the rates of publication and timely publication (within 24 months) for contemporary oncology RCTs from all over the world. We also investigated the trial characteristics associated with publication and timely publication.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified all phase III oncology RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with a primary completion date between January 2008 and December 2012. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify publications. The final search date was 31 December 2015. Our primary outcome measure was the time to publication from the primary completion date to the date of primary publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

RESULTS

We identified 598 completed oncology RCTs; overall, 398 (66.6%) had been published. For published trials, the median time to publication was 25 months (interquartile range, 16-37 months). Only 192 trials (32.1%) were published within 24 months. Timely publication was independently associated with trials completed late in 2012. Trials conducted in Asia and other regions were less likely to have timely publication, but trials conducted in different locations were all equally likely to be published. Industry- and NIH-funded trials were equally likely to be published timely or at any time after trial completion. Among 391 published trials with clear primary outcomes, there was a trend for timely publication of positive trials compared with negative trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the ethical obligations and societal expectations of disclosing findings promptly, oncology RCTs performed poorly.

Association between bibliometric parameters, reporting and methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in vascular and endovascular surgery

Purpose We aimed to investigate association between bibliometric parameters, reporting and methodological quality of vascular and endovascular surgery randomised controlled trials. Methods The most recent 75 and oldest 75 randomised controlled trials published in leading journals over a 10-year period were identified. The reporting quality was analysed using the CONSORT statement, and methodological quality with the Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklist. We used exploratory univariate and multivariable linear regression analysis to investigate associations. Findings Bibliometric parameters such as type of journal, study design reported in title, number of pages; external funding, industry sponsoring and number of citations are associated with reporting quality. Moreover, parameters such as type of journal, subject area and study design reported in title are associated with methodological quality. Conclusions The bibliometric parameters of randomised controlled trials may be independent predictors for their reporting and methodological quality. Moreover, the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials is associated with their methodological quality and vice versa.

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

Use and misuse of common terminology criteria for adverse events in cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0 (CTCAE v3.0) were released in 2003 and have been used widely to report toxicity in publications or presentations describing cancer clinical trials. Here we evaluate whether guidelines for reporting toxicity are followed in publications reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for cancer.

METHODS

Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic cancer therapy published between 2011 and 2013, were reviewed to identify eligible studies, which stated explicitly that CTCAE v3.0 was used to report toxicity. Each AE term and its grade were located in CTCAE v3.0 to determine if they fell within the guidelines provided in the explanatory file.

RESULTS

A total of 166 publications were included in this analysis. Criteria from CTCAE v3.0 were frequently used incorrectly. For example, CATEGORY names such as Metabolic were misreported as AEs in 19 trials, and inappropriate grades for AEs assigned frequently. For example, febrile neutropenia was graded 1 or 2 in 35 of 91 studies (38 %), but the minimum grade for this toxicity is 3. Alopecia was graded 3 or more in 19 of 77 studies (25 %), but the maximum is only grade 2.

CONCLUSION

The present study provides evidence of poor reporting of toxicity in clinical trials. The study provides a lower estimate for the misuse of AE terms and grades, and implies that other AE terms and grades that conform to CTCAE v3.0 guidelines may have been assigned incorrectly. Inaccurate reporting of toxicity in clinical trials can lead clinicians to make inappropriate treatment decisions.

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist

BACKGROUND

Reviews indicate that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the medical literature is less than optimal, poor to moderate, and require improving. However, the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs is unknown. As a result, the aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs and identify factors associated with better reporting quality. We hypothesized that quality of reporting of RCTs was influenced by industry funding, positive findings, larger sample sizes, latter year of publication and publication in non-chiropractic journals.

METHODS

RCTs published between 2005 and 2014 were sourced from clinical trial registers, PubMed and the Cochrane Reviews. RCTs were included if they involved high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal and/or extremity manipulation and were conducted by a chiropractor or within a chiropractic department. Data extraction, and reviews were conducted by all authors independently. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

OUTCOMES

a 39-point overall quality of reporting score checklist was developed based on the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statements. Four key methodological items, based on allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors, and use of intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs were included. The overall quality of reporting score ranged between 10 and 33 (median score 26.0; IQR = 8.00). Allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors and ITT analysis were reported in 31 (87 %), 16 (46 %), 25 (71 %) and 21 (60 %) of the 35 RCTs respectively. Items most underreported were from the CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statement. Multivariate regression analysis, revealed that year of publication (t32 = 5.17, p = 0.000, 95 % CI: 0.76, 1.76), and sample size (t32 = 3.01, p = 0.005, 95 % CI: 1.36, 7.02), were the only two factors associated with reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of reporting RCTs in chiropractic ranged from poor to excellent, improving between 2005 and 2014. This study suggests that quality of reporting, was influenced by year of publication and sample size but not journal type, funding source or outcome positivity. Reporting of some key methodological items and uptake of items from the CONSORT Extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments items was suboptimal. Future recommendations were made.

Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus: Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials

Background:

Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors represent a novel class of antidiabetic drugs. The reporting quality of the trials evaluating the efficacy of these agents for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus has not been explored. Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of such randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to identify the predictors of reporting quality.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted for RCTs published till 12 June 2014. Two independent investigators carried out the searches and assessed the reporting quality on three parameters: Overall quality score (OQS) using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement, Jadad score and intention to treat analysis. Inter-rater agreements were compared using Cohen's weighted kappa statistic. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify the predictors.

Results:

Thirty-seven relevant RCTs were included in the present analysis. The median OQS was 17 with a range from 8 to 21. On Jadad scale, the median score was three with a range from 0 to 5. Complete details about allocation concealment and blinding were present in 21 and 10 studies respectively. Most studies lacked an elaborate discussion on trial limitations and generalizability. Among the factors identified as significantly associated with reporting quality were the publishing journal and region of conduct of RCT.

Conclusions:

The key methodological items remain poorly reported in most studies. Strategies like stricter adherence to CONSORT guidelines by journals, access to full trial protocols to gain valuable information and full collaboration among investigators and methodologists might prove helpful in improving the quality of published RCT reports.