Quality of Reporting Nutritional Randomized Controlled Trials in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis

Common Limitations and Challenges of Dietary Clinical Trials for Translation into Clinical Practices

The progressive development of clinical and public health nutrition has long relied on dietary clinical trials (DCTs), investigating the causal relationship between diet and multiple risk factors of non-communicable and chronic diseases. DCTs are also hallmarks for establishing dietary requirements and promoting overall nutritional health among the population. Despite their critical importance in translation into public health strategies and practices, DCTs have several limitations and challenges for study design, implementation and finding interpretation. The complex nature of nutrition interventions, collinearity between diet components, multi-target effects of the interventions, diverse dietary behaviors, and food culture are the most challenging issues. Furthermore, baseline exposure and dietary status, appropriate control groups, blinding, randomization, and poor adherence undermine the effectiveness of DCTs in translation into practices. Disruptive factors will be minimized if researchers are committed to following good clinical practice (GCP) standards available for common designs of clinical trials. Planning DCTs, however, needs careful considerations for hypothesis generation, study design development, the definition of primary and secondary outcome measures, and target population.

Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating an Enteral or Parenteral Nutrition Intervention in Critical Illness According to the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review and Recommendation of Minimum Standard Reporting Criteria

Lack of reporting consistency is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nutrition. This impacts synthesis and interpretation and may misinform clinical practice. The objective was to evaluate reporting of parallel-group RCTs of enteral or parenteral nutrition interventions in critically ill adults against the recommendations in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines and a priori-defined nutrition criteria. A systematic search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL was conducted to identify RCTs published from January 2011 to February 14, 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage of CONSORT criteria "completely met" (a score of 1) from all included studies (out of a total possible score of 37). Secondary outcomes included the percentage of CONSORT criteria that were "partially" or "not met" and the percentage of a priori-defined nutrition criteria that were "completely," "partially," or "not met" (adjusted to reflect criteria applicable to the paper). Data are presented as mean (standard deviation). Comparisons of normally distributed continuous data were made using a t-test (P < .05). Of 18,969 articles identified, 56 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 60% (19%) of the eligible CONSORT criteria were "completely met," 20% (9%) "partially met," and 20% (15%) "not met." For the nutrition criteria, 41% (20%) of the eligible criteria were "completely met," 25% (14%) "partially met," and 34% (17%) "not met." Reporting against CONSORT guidelines was variable and often incomplete in relation to important a priori-defined nutrition variables.

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.