Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries in adults: a systematic methodological survey

[Design of a clinical study to demonstrate the therapeutic benefit of another wound treatment product]

BACKGROUND

Due to new legal requirements, a patient-relevant benefit for other wound treatment products (sPW) must be demonstrated through clinical studies if reimbursement at the expense of the statutory health insurance is sought in the non-inpatient sector.

METHOD

An interdisciplinary group with expertise in clinical wound care has developed general recommendations for the design of suitable studies. In addition to regulatory documents, previous studies that have already been recognized as proof of benefit in other areas served as a basis.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials that cover at least the most common types of chronic wounds (arterial, venous, diabetic or pressure sore) are recommended as the best method for gathering evidence. Despite the heterogeneous etiology of chronic wounds, the results should also be transferable to other wound types. The test intervention does not usually consist of the sPW alone, but of a combined wound treatment that follows a treatment plan that is as clearly defined as possible. In the comparison group, all wound treatment options (besides the sPW) must also be available and used according to a similar predefined treatment plan. Depending on the intended purpose and treatment goal, complete wound closure should, if possible, be recorded as the cardinal - although not always as the primary - endpoint. In justified cases, e.g. in the case of intermediate use as part of phase-appropriate wound therapy for chronic wounds, a significant reduction in the wound area can also be considered for benefit assessment. Quality of life (e.g. pain) can also justify a benefit and can therefore be recorded as a primary outcome parameter in clinical trials. The duration of the clinical trial should be adapted to the central endpoints, the medical or nursing goal of wound care and the intended purpose of the sPW. A benefit does not always arise from microbiological, physiological, laboratory or histological parameters or imaging findings.

Deficiencies in reporting inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions in pressure injuries: a systematic methodological review

Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are the best evidence for informing on intervention effectiveness. Their results, however, can be biased due to omitted evidence in the quantitative analyses. We aimed to assess the proportion of randomized controlled trials omitted from meta-analyses in the rehabilitation field and explore related reasons.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional meta-research study. For each systematic review included in a published selected sample in the rehabilitation field, we identified an index meta-analysis on the primary outcome and the main comparison. We then looked at all the studies considered eligible for the chosen comparison in the systematic review and identified those trials that have been omitted (i.e., not included) from each index meta-analysis. Reasons for omission were collected based on an eight-reason classification. We used descriptive statistics to describe the proportion of omitted trials overall and according to each reason.

RESULTS

Starting from a cohort of 827 systematic reviews, 131 index meta-analyses comprising a total of 1761 eligible trials were selected. Only 16 index meta-analyses included all eligible studies while 15 omitted studies without providing references. From the remaining 100 index meta-analyses, 717 trials (40,7%) were omitted overall. Specific reasons for omission were: "unable to distinguish between selective reporting and inadequate planning" (39,3%, N = 282), "inadequate planning" (17%, N = 122), "justified to be not included" (15,1%, N = 108), "incomplete reporting" (8,4%, N = 60), "selective reporting" (3,3%, N = 24) and other situations (e.g., outcome present but no motivation for omission) (5,2%, N = 37). The 11,7% (N = 84) of omitted trials were not assessed due to non-English language or full text not available.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of the eligible trials were omitted from their index meta-analyses. Better reporting, protocol registration, definition and adoption of core outcome sets are needed to prevent omission of evidence in systematic reviews.

Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries in adults: a systematic methodological survey

Randomised controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries should include a clear description of outcomes to increase transparency and replicability and improve the construction of scientific evidence. The objective of this study was to assess the completeness of the descriptions of the outcomes of therapeutic interventions in adults with pressure injury (PI) and factors associated with completeness. This was a systematic methodological survey. The completeness of the outcome was assessed according to five criteria: domain (title), specific measure (technique/instrument used), specific metric, or format of the outcome data of each participant that was used for analysis, aggregation (method data from each group were summarised), and time that was used for analysis. Sixty-eight studies were included for analysis. A total of 265 outcomes were reported, and 46 trials (67.6%) had 73 primary outcomes, which were mainly intermediates/substitutes (78.8%). The main outcome evaluated was the ulcer area reduction (36.6%). Approximately 37.2% of the outcomes were incompletely reported, and the least described element was the data aggregation method (72.8%). Only 48.4% of the outcomes with the specified technique had the same reference or validation. Poor quality of reporting outcomes was associated with studies with an older year of publication and a small sample size, single-center studies, and those sponsored by industry. PI studies use many outcomes, mostly surrogates or intermediates, and some of them are incompletely described.