The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed

The Power of Prehabilitation, the Reporting of Power Calculations in Randomized Clinical Trials Evaluating Prehabilitation in Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-research Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess sample size calculation reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating prehabilitation interventions in oncological surgery patients.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was performed in multiple medical databases from inception to April 2023, including MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINHAL, AMED, and PsychINFO.

STUDY SELECTION

The inclusion criteria used were RCTs evaluating effectiveness of exercise, nutrition, and/or psychological interventions on postoperative outcomes of adult patients undergoing oncological surgery.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors (DS and SV) extracted information on the sample size calculation parameters, including type I error (α), power (1-β), mean (or mean difference between randomization arms), and variance (eg, standard deviation) for continuous outcomes, and event rates or event rate difference between randomization arms for dichotomous outcomes. When possible, we recalculated the sample size required using the collected data, given a 10% margin of error.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the 59 included publications (58 RCTs), 26 (44%) reported sufficient information to complete sample size recalculation. Of those that provided sufficient information allowing us to recalculate the required sample size, 11 (42%) were within a 10% margin of the reported sample size, whereas 9 (35%) were >10% higher than reported sample size and 6 (23%) were >10% lower than reported sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the published RCTs in this field exhibit poor sample size calculation reporting. Most RCTs that report sufficient sample size information were underpowered. More stringent reporting requirements are necessary.

Reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices: the CONSORT-iNeurostim extension

Background

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement has improved the quality of reporting of randomised trials. Extensions to the CONSORT statement are often needed to address specific issues of trial reporting, including those relevant to particular types of interventions. Methodological and reporting deficiencies in clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices are common. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension is a new reporting guideline for randomised controlled trials evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices.

Methods

CONSORT-iNeurostim was developed using the EQUATOR methodological framework including a literature review and expert consultation to generate an initial list of candidate items. The candidate items were included in a two-round Delphi survey, discussed at an international consensus meeting (42 stakeholders including healthcare professionals, methodologists, journal editors and industry representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands and other countries), and refined through a checklist pilot (18 stakeholders).

Findings

The initial extension item list included 49 candidate items relevant to CONSORT-iNeurostim. We received 132 responses in the first round of the Delphi survey and 99 responses in the second round. Participants suggested an additional 20 candidate items for CONSORT-iNeurostim during the first round of the survey, and those achieving initial consensus were discussed at the consensus meeting. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension includes 7 new checklist items, including one item for reporting the neurostimulation intervention comprising a separate checklist of 14 items.

Interpretation

The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension will promote increased transparency, clarity, and completeness of trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices. It will assist journal editors, peer-reviewers, and readers to better interpret the appropriateness and generalisability of the methods used and reported outcomes.

Funding

Abbott, Boston Scientific Corp., Mainstay Medical, Medtronic Ltd, Nevro Corp. and Saluda Medical.

Frequency of limitations statements in original research articles of United States leading medical journals: A meta-research protocol

BACKGROUND

Limitation declarations are commonly deemed essential to uphold intellectual humility for scientific research, but little has been reported about the limitation statements in published original research articles. This meta-research study aims to investigate the trends of limitation statements among three leading general medical journals in the US.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study will compile a data set of full-length original research articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and Annals of Internal Medicine between 2002 and 2022. Limitation statement will be recognized by two investigators, and a predefined set of sensitive keywords is used for sensitivity analysis. Frequency of limitation statements within the main text of research articles and trends for different study designs, including their association with the corresponding reporting guidelines, are the main measurements. We employ the Cochran-Armitage test for trend analysis.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will provide an overview of the limitation statements in leading general medical journals in the US. The results may contribute to future research to identify factors that are associated with the presence of limitation statements.

Evaluating Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Journals with CONSORT Guidelines Using GPT-4 AI

Background

The quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial for accurate interpretation and synthesis of evidence. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines provide a standardized framework for reporting RCT abstracts. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of RCT abstracts published in three major plastic surgery journals to the CONSORT tool guideline for reporting abstracts, utilizing Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 artificial intelligence (GPT-4 AI) technology.

Methods

Abstracts of RCTs published between 2010 and 2023 were collected. The GPT-4 AI model was utilized to assess the abstracts based on the CONSORT criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to report the compliance scores and identify areas where abstracts lacked compliance.

Results

Of the initially identified 500 abstracts, a total of 371 RCT abstracts met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The mean CONSORT score was 10.05 (±2.22), with a median score of 10.72. Specific areas where abstracts lacked compliance included trial design (39.6%), participant details (28.8%), intervention descriptions (15.6%), randomization process (25.3%), and the number of participants analyzed (33.4%). Trial registration (18.3%) and funding information (15.1%) were also frequently missing.

Conclusions

Our study's innovative use of the GPT-4 AI model for analysis demonstrated the potential of AI technology in streamlining and enhancing the evaluation of research compliance. We advocate for heightened awareness and more rigorous application of CONSORT guidelines among authors, reviewers, and journal editors. Emphasizing the role of AI technology in the evaluative process can further improve the reporting quality of future RCTs in plastic surgery, contributing to more reliable and transparent research in the field.

The usefulness of randomized trials of lifestyle interventions for overweight, obesity, or metabolic syndrome: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) widely considered the gold standard for evidence-based healthcare may be limited in their clinical usefulness in lifestyle interventions for adults with overweight, obesity, or metabolic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review of lifestyle intervention RCTs we delineated trial usefulness.

METHODS

Following prospective registration in PROSPERO (CRD4202347896), we conducted a comprehensive search across Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases, covering the period from inception to December 2023. RCTs involving dietary interventions, with or without physical activity, and with or without behavioural support were included. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study usefulness was assessed using a multidimensional 14 item questionnaire. Percentage compliance with usefulness items was computed.

RESULTS

Of 1175 records, 30 RCTs (12,841 participants) were included. Among these, 13 (43%) RCTs complied with half of the usefulness items and only 3 (10%) complied with two-thirds of the items. For each usefulness item individually: 30 (100%) reported the burden of the problem addressed, 15 (50%) contextualized the trial through a systematic review, 18 (60%) presented an informative trial with clinically meaningful outcomes evaluated at a stated statistical power, 17 (57%) had low risk of bias, 2 (7%) exhibited pragmatic features pertaining to the trial methodologies and outcomes relevant to real-world application.18 (60%) were patient centred with formal patient involvement, none (0%) demonstrated value for money, 17 (57%) were completed according to their feasibility assessment achieving at least 90% of the estimated sample size, and 30 (100%) reported at least one of five transparency or openness features.

CONCLUSION

Only one in 10 lifestyle RCTs met two-thirds of the usefulness features. It is imperative to meet these criteria when devising future trials within the field of nutrition to reduce research waste.

Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?

PURPOSE

To determine how radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals encourage and mandate the use of reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in their author and reviewer instructions.

METHODS

The primary source of journal information and associated citation data used was the Journal Citation Reports (June 2023 release for 2022 citation data; Clarivate Analytics, UK). The first- and second-quartile journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index were included. The author and reviewer instructions were evaluated by two independent readers, followed by an additional reader for consensus, with the assistance of automatic annotation. Encouragement and submission requirements were systematically analyzed. The reporting guidelines were grouped as AI-specific, related to modeling, and unrelated to modeling.

RESULTS

Out of 102 journals, 98 were included in this study, and all of them had author instructions. Only five journals (5%) encouraged the authors to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines. Among these, three required a filled-out checklist. Reviewer instructions were found in 16 journals (16%), among which one journal (6%) encouraged the reviewers to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines without submission requirements. The proportions of author and reviewer encouragement for AI-specific reporting guidelines were statistically significantly lower compared with those for other types of guidelines (P < 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that AI-specific guidelines are not commonly encouraged and mandated (i.e., requiring a filled-out checklist) by these journals, compared with guidelines related to modeling and unrelated to modeling, leaving vast space for improvement. This meta-research study hopes to contribute to the awareness of the imaging community for AI reporting guidelines and ignite large-scale group efforts by all stakeholders, making AI research less wasteful.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This meta-research highlights the need for improved encouragement of AI-specific guidelines in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals. This can potentially foster greater awareness among the AI community and motivate various stakeholders to collaborate to promote more efficient and responsible AI research reporting practices.

Designing observational studies for credible causal inference in addiction research-Directed acyclic graphs, modified disjunctive cause criterion and target trial emulation

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for causal inference. With a sufficient sample size, randomization removes confounding up to the time of randomization and allows the treatment effect to be isolated. However, RCTs may have limited generalizability and transportability and are often not feasible in addiction research due to ethical or logistical constraints. The importance of observational studies from real-world settings has been increasingly recognized in research on health. This paper provides an overview of modern approaches to designing observational studies that enable causal inference. It illustrates three key techniques, Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), modified Disjunctive Cause Criterion and Target Trial Emulation, and discusses the strengths and limitations of their applications.

Pilot and feasibility trials in surgery are incompletely reported according to the CONSORT checklist: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

Given the key role that pilot and feasibility (PAF) trials play in addressing the challenges of surgical trials, adequate reporting completeness is essential. Our aim was to assess completeness of reporting and evaluate if the items of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for PAF trials have been reported in surgical PAF trials.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a metaresearch study reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they were pilot or feasibility randomized trials evaluating a surgical intervention. The primary outcome was overall adherence to the CONSORT statement extension to randomized PAF trials checklist. A Poisson regression was performed to explore the association between research factors and reporting completeness.

SETTING

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 1-December 31, 2011 and 2021.

RESULTS

After screening 1991 citations, 38 studies from 2011 to 34 studies from 2021 were included. The mean CONSORT reporting score across all included studies was 21.5 (standard deviation 6.3). After excluding items that were not applicable to all studies, a mean of 20.1 (standard deviation 6.1) of 34 items (0.59) were reported. Studies published in 2021 (vs 2011) did not have a greater number of CONSORT items reported (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.15). Studies registered in a clinical trial registry (IRR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.48) and randomizing more than 50 patients (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30) were associated with more CONSORT items reported.

CONCLUSION

The reporting completeness of surgical PAF trials is poor and has not improved after the publication of the CONSORT extension.

Immersive Technologies for Depression Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Depression significantly impacts quality of life, affecting approximately 280 million people worldwide. However, only 16.5% of those affected receive treatment, indicating a substantial treatment gap. Immersive technologies (IMTs) such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality offer new avenues for treating depression by creating immersive environments for therapeutic interventions. Despite their potential, significant gaps exist in the current evidence regarding the design, implementation, and use of IMTs for depression care.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to map the available evidence on IMT interventions targeting depression treatment.

METHODS

This scoping review followed a methodological framework, and we systematically searched databases for studies on IMTs and depression. The focus was on randomized clinical trials involving adults and using IMTs. The selection and charting process involved multiple reviewers to minimize bias.

RESULTS

The search identified 16 peer-reviewed articles, predominantly from Europe (n=10, 63%), with a notable emphasis on Poland (n=9, 56%), which contributed to more than half of the articles. Most of the studies (9/16, 56%) were conducted between 2020 and 2021. Regarding participant demographics, of the 16 articles, 5 (31%) exclusively involved female participants, and 7 (44%) featured participants whose mean or median age was >60 years. Regarding technical aspects, all studies focused on VR, with most using stand-alone VR headsets (14/16, 88%), and interventions typically ranging from 2 to 8 weeks, predominantly in hospital settings (11/16, 69%). Only 2 (13%) of the 16 studies mentioned using a specific VR design framework in planning their interventions. The most frequently used therapeutic approach was Ericksonian psychotherapy, used in 56% (9/16) of the studies. Notably, none of the articles reported using an implementation framework or identified barriers and enablers to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review highlights the growing interest in using IMTs, particularly VR, for depression treatment but emphasizes the need for more inclusive and comprehensive research. Future studies should explore varied therapeutic approaches and cost-effectiveness as well as the inclusion of augmented reality to fully realize the potential of IMTs in mental health care.

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine could be improved: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to identify available reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), delineate their fundamental characteristics, assess the scientific rigor of their development process, and evaluate their dissemination.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, WANFANG DATA, and the EQUATOR Network to identify TCM reporting guidelines. A preprepared Excel database was used to extract information on the basic characteristics, development process, and dissemination information. The development process quality of TCM reporting guidelines was assessed by evaluating their compliance with the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRRG). The extent of dissemination of these guidelines was analyzed by examining the number of citations received.

RESULTS

A total of 26 reporting guidelines for TCM were obtained from 20 academic journals, with 61.5% of them published in English journals. Among the guidelines, 14 (53.8%) were registered in the EQUATOR Network. On average, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines was reported to be 63.3% ranging from 22.2% to 94.4%. Three steps showed poor compliance, namely guideline endorsement (23.1%), translated guidelines (19.2%), and developing a publication strategy (19.2%). Furthermore, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines published in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals. In terms of the dissemination, 15.4% of the guidelines had been cited over 100 times, while 73.1% had been cited less than 50 times.

CONCLUSION

The development of TCM reporting guidelines still has limitations in terms of regarding scientific rigor and follow-up dissemination. Therefore, it is important to ensure adherence to the scientific process in the development of TCM reporting guidelines and to strengthen their promotion, dissemination, and implementation.

Self-reporting with checklists in artificial intelligence research on medical imaging: a systematic review based on citations of CLAIM

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usage of a well-known and widely adopted checklist, Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical imaging (CLAIM), for self-reporting through a systematic analysis of its citations.

METHODS

Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were used to search for citations (date, 29 April 2023). CLAIM's use for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist) and other potential use cases were systematically assessed in research papers. Eligible papers were evaluated independently by two readers, with the help of automatic annotation. Item-by-item confirmation analysis on papers with checklist proof was subsequently performed.

RESULTS

A total of 391 unique citations were identified from three databases. Of the 118 papers included in this study, 12 (10%) provided a proof of self-reported CLAIM checklist. More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some sort of adherence to CLAIM without providing any proof in the form of a checklist. Approximately one-third (36; 31%) cited the CLAIM for reasons unrelated to their reporting or methodological adherence. Overall, the claims on 57 to 93% of the items per publication were confirmed in the item-by-item analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Only a small proportion of the publications used CLAIM as checklist and supplied filled-out documentation; however, the self-reported checklists may contain errors and should be approached cautiously. We hope that this systematic citation analysis would motivate artificial intelligence community about the importance of proper self-reporting, and encourage researchers, journals, editors, and reviewers to take action to ensure the proper usage of checklists.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Only a small percentage of the publications used CLAIM for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). However, the filled-out checklist proofs may contain errors, e.g., false claims of adherence, and should be approached cautiously. These may indicate inappropriate usage of checklists and necessitate further action by authorities.

KEY POINTS

• Of 118 eligible papers, only 12 (10%) followed the CLAIM checklist for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some kind of adherence without providing any proof. • Overall, claims on 57 to 93% of the items were valid in item-by-item confirmation analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively. • Even with the checklist proof, the items declared may contain errors and should be approached cautiously.

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression

BACKGROUND

Findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are synthesised through meta-analyses, which inform evidence-based decision-making. When key details regarding trial outcomes are not fully reported, knowledge synthesis and uptake of findings into clinical practice are impeded.

AIMS

Our study assessed reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs for older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

Trials published between 2011 and 2021, which assessed any intervention for adults aged ≥65 years with a MDD diagnosis, and that specified a single primary outcome were considered for inclusion in our study. Outcome reporting assessment was conducted independently and in duplicate with a 58-item checklist, used in developing the CONSORT-Outcomes statement, and information in each RCT was scored as 'fully reported', 'partially reported' or 'not reported', as applicable.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 49 RCTs reported one primary outcome and were included in our study. Most trials (71%) did not fully report over half of the 58 checklist items. Items pertaining to outcome analyses and interpretation were fully reported by 65% or more of trials. Items reported less frequently included: outcome measurement instrument properties (varied from 3 to 30%) and justification of the criteria used to define clinically meaningful change (23%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in how geriatric depression RCTs report primary outcomes, with omission of details regarding measurement, selection, justification and definition of clinically meaningful change. Outcome reporting deficiencies may hinder replicability and synthesis efforts that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making. The CONSORT-Outcomes guideline should be used when reporting geriatric depression RCTs.

Guidelines for reporting pediatric and child health clinical trial protocols and reports: study protocol for SPIRIT-Children and CONSORT-Children

BACKGROUND

Despite the critical importance of clinical trials to provide evidence about the effects of intervention for children and youth, a paucity of published high-quality pediatric clinical trials persists. Sub-optimal reporting of key trial elements necessary to critically appraise and synthesize findings is prevalent. To harmonize and provide guidance for reporting in pediatric controlled clinical trial protocols and reports, reporting guideline extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines specific to pediatrics are being developed: SPIRIT-Children (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children (CONSORT-C).

METHODS

The development of SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be informed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality (EQUATOR) method for reporting guideline development in the following stages: (1) generation of a preliminary list of candidate items, informed by (a) items developed during initial development efforts and child relevant items from recent published SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions; (b) two systematic reviews and environmental scan of the literature; (c) workshops with young people; (2) an international Delphi study, where a wide range of panelists will vote on the inclusion or exclusion of candidate items on a nine-point Likert scale; (3) a consensus meeting to discuss items that have not reached consensus in the Delphi study and to "lock" the checklist items; (4) pilot testing of items and definitions to ensure that they are understandable, useful, and applicable; and (5) a final project meeting to discuss each item in the context of pilot test results. Key partners, including young people (ages 12-24 years) and family caregivers (e.g., parents) with lived experiences with pediatric clinical trials, and individuals with expertise and involvement in pediatric trials will be involved throughout the project. SPIRIT-C/CONSORT-C will be disseminated through publications, academic conferences, and endorsement by pediatric journals and relevant research networks and organizations.

DISCUSSION

SPIRIT/CONSORT-C may serve as resources to facilitate comprehensive reporting needed to understand pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports, which may improve transparency within pediatric clinical trials and reduce research waste.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The development of these reporting guidelines is registered with the EQUATOR Network: SPIRIT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 ) and CONSORT-Children ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#CHILD ).

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.

A Scoping Review of Adopted Information Extraction Methods for RCTs

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the strongest evidence for therapeutic interventions and their effects on groups of subjects. However, the large amount of unstructured information in these trials makes it challenging and time-consuming to make decisions and identify important concepts and valid evidence. This study aims to explore methods for automating or semi-automating information extraction from reports of RCT studies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles published between January 1, 2010, and 2022. We focused on published Natural Language Processing (NLP), machine learning, and deep learning methods that automate or semi-automate key elements of information extraction in the context of RCTs.

Results

A total of 26 publications were included, which discussed the automatic extraction of key characteristics of RCTs using various PICO frameworks (PIBOSO and PECODR). Among these publications, 14 (53.8%) extracted key characteristics based on PICO, PIBOSO, and PECODR, while 12 (46.1%) discussed information extraction methods in RCT studies. Common approaches mentioned included word/phrase matching, machine learning algorithms such as binary classification using the Naïve Bayes algorithm and powerful BERT network for feature extraction, support vector machine for data classification, conditional random field, non-machine-dependent automation, and machine learning or deep learning approaches.

Conclusion

The lack of publicly available software and limited access to existing software makes it difficult to determine the most powerful information extraction system. However, deep learning models like Transformers and BERT language models have shown better performance in natural language processing.

Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Modeling Studies: Development and Validation

BACKGROUND

The reporting of machine learning (ML) prognostic and diagnostic modeling studies is often inadequate, making it difficult to understand and replicate such studies. To address this issue, multiple consensus and expert reporting guidelines for ML studies have been published. However, these guidelines cover different parts of the analytics lifecycle, and individually, none of them provide a complete set of reporting requirements.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to consolidate the ML reporting guidelines and checklists in the literature to provide reporting items for prognostic and diagnostic ML in in-silico and shadow mode studies.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search that identified 192 unique peer-reviewed English articles that provide guidance and checklists for reporting ML studies. The articles were screened by their title and abstract against a set of 9 inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles that were filtered through had their quality evaluated by 2 raters using a 9-point checklist constructed from guideline development good practices. The average κ was 0.71 across all quality criteria. The resulting 17 high-quality source papers were defined as having a quality score equal to or higher than the median. The reporting items in these 17 articles were consolidated and screened against a set of 6 inclusion and exclusion criteria. The resulting reporting items were sent to an external group of 11 ML experts for review and updated accordingly. The updated checklist was used to assess the reporting in 6 recent modeling papers in JMIR AI. Feedback from the external review and initial validation efforts was used to improve the reporting items.

RESULTS

In total, 37 reporting items were identified and grouped into 5 categories based on the stage of the ML project: defining the study details, defining and collecting the data, modeling methodology, model evaluation, and explainability. None of the 17 source articles covered all the reporting items. The study details and data description reporting items were the most common in the source literature, with explainability and methodology guidance (ie, data preparation and model training) having the least coverage. For instance, a median of 75% of the data description reporting items appeared in each of the 17 high-quality source guidelines, but only a median of 33% of the data explainability reporting items appeared. The highest-quality source articles tended to have more items on reporting study details. Other categories of reporting items were not related to the source article quality. We converted the reporting items into a checklist to support more complete reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings supported the need for a set of consolidated reporting items, given that existing high-quality guidelines and checklists do not individually provide complete coverage. The consolidated set of reporting items is expected to improve the quality and reproducibility of ML modeling studies.

Systematic review of sample size calculations and reporting in randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology over a 20-year period

PURPOSE

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for the practice of evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the reporting of sample size calculations in ophthalmology RCTs in 5 leading journals over a 20-year period. Reviewing sample size calculations in ophthalmology RCTs will shed light on the methodological quality of RCTs and, by extension, on the validity of published results.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched to identify full reports of RCTs in the journals Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, and British Journal of Ophthalmology between January and December of the years 2000, 2010 and 2020. Screening identified 559 articles out of which 289 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Data regarding sample size calculation reporting and trial characteristics was extracted for each trial by independent investigators.

RESULTS

In 2020, 77.9% of the RCTs reported sample size calculations as compared with 37% in 2000 (p < 0.001) and 60.7% in 2010 (p = 0.012). Studies reporting all necessary parameters for sample size recalculation increased significantly from 17.2% in 2000 to 39.3% in 2010 and 43.0% in 2020 (p < 0.001). Reporting of funding was greater in 2020 (98.8%) compared with 2010 (89.3%) and 2000 (53.1%). Registration in a clinical trials database occurred more frequently in 2020 (94.2%) compared to 2000 (1.2%; p < 0.001) and 2010 (68%; p < 0.001). In 2020, 38.4% of studies reported different sample sizes in the online registry from the published article. Overall, the most studied area in 2000 was glaucoma (29.6% of RCTs), whereas in 2010 and 2020, it was retina (40.2 and 37.2% of the RCTs, respectively). The number of patients enrolled in a study and the number of eyes studied was significantly greater in 2020 compared to 2000 and 2010 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Sample size calculation reporting in ophthalmology RCTs has improved significantly between the years 2000 and 2020 and is comparable to other fields in medicine. However, reporting of certain parameters remains inconsistent with current publication guidelines.

Reporting and Representativeness of Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status in Systemic Sclerosis Randomized Trials: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess how and to what extent socioeconomic status and ethnicity/race of participants are reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on systemic sclerosis (SSc), and to estimate the representativeness of different ethnic/racial groups in SSc RCTs.

METHODS

We searched all published RCTs on SSc indexed in PubMed. We retrieved information on main features of RCTs published from 2000 onward and recorded for each study whether race/ethnicity was reported; how ethnicity/race was defined and assigned; and the number of patients included for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with race/ethnicity reporting. Proportion of races/ethnicities included in US-based RCTs on SSc was examined and compared with US demographic data.

RESULTS

We included 106 studies, mostly conducted in Europe (42%) or North America (25%), published after 2010 (74%), and enrolling a total of 6,693 patients. About one-third of studies provided information about race/ethnicity, with no improved reporting over time. Only 2 papers reported patient's socioeconomic status. Study location (US or intercontinental) was the only significant factor associated with a better reporting of race/ethnicity in multivariable analysis. In studies where race/ethnicity was reported, White patients were mostly represented (79%), followed by Asian (7%), and African American (6%). In the sensitivity analysis limited to studies from the US, underrepresentation of African American patients was observed in the 2000-2010 time period, but not later.

CONCLUSION

Documentation of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status is poor in RCTs on SSc. More effort should be made to document race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status and to promote diversity in SSc RCTs.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted.

RESULTS

Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials.

CONCLUSION

With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Restoring black triangle with bioclear matrix versus conventional celluloid matrix method: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Open gingival embrasures form complex aesthetic and functional problems. This clinical trial assessed the bioclear matrix using injection molding technique against conventional celluloid matrix technique in management of black triangle.

METHODS

A total of 26 participants were randomly divided into two groups (13 participants each) according to the technique used. In group (A) celluloid conventional matrix method was used, while in group (B) bioclear matrix with injection molding technique was used. The different outcomes (Esthetic evaluation, marginal integrity and patient satisfaction) were evaluated following the FDI criteria by two blinded examiners. The evaluation was done at (T0) (immediate after restoration); (T6) after 6 months; and (T12) after 12 months. Statistical analysis was done as categorical and ordinal data were presented as frequency and percentage values. Categorical data were compared using fisher's exact test. Intergroup comparisons for ordinal data were analyzed utilizing the Mann-Whitney U test, while intragroup comparisons were analyzed using Friedman's test followed by the Nemenyi post hoc test. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05 within all tests.

RESULTS

Regarding radiographic marginal integrity and marginal adaptation, the bioclear matrix group revealed superior results when compared to celluloid matrix group with a significant difference between both groups at all intervals (p < 0.05); however no significant difference was detected at different intervals. While for proximal anatomical form and esthetic anatomical form, as well as phonetics and food impaction, all cases in both groups were successful with no statistical significant difference between groups. For the periodontal response, there was no significant difference between groups. However, there was a significant difference between scores measured at different intervals, with T0 being significantly different from other intervals (p < 0.001). Marginal staining revealed that there was no significant difference between groups. While, a significant difference between scores measured at different intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

The restorative management of the black triangle with both protocols was able to deliver superior aesthetic and good marginal adaptation; suitable biological properties; with adequate survival time. Both techniques were almost equally successful, however they are depending on the operator skills.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trial was registered in the ( www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ ) database in 23/07/2020; with the unique identification number NCT04482790.

Borrowing strength from clinical trials in analysing longitudinal data from a treated cohort: investigating the effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the management of dementia

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals seek information about effectiveness of treatments in patients who would be offered them in routine clinical practice. Electronic medical records (EMRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can both provide data on treatment effects; however, each data source has limitations when considered in isolation.

METHODS

A novel modelling methodology which incorporates RCT estimates in the analysis of EMR data via informative prior distributions is proposed. A Bayesian mixed modelling approach is used to model outcome trajectories among patients in the EMR dataset receiving the treatment of interest. This model incorporates an estimate of treatment effect based on a meta-analysis of RCTs as an informative prior distribution. This provides a combined estimate of treatment effect based on both data sources.

RESULTS

The superior performance of the novel combined estimator is demonstrated via a simulation study. The new approach is applied to estimate the effectiveness at 12 months after treatment initiation of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the management of the cognitive symptoms of dementia in terms of Mini-Mental State Examination scores. This demonstrated that estimates based on either trials data only (1.10, SE = 0.316) or cohort data only (1.56, SE = 0.240) overestimated this compared with the estimate using data from both sources (0.86, SE = 0.327).

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to combine data from EMRs and RCTs in order to provide better estimates of treatment effectiveness.

Reporting standards for child health research were few and poorly implemented

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify existing reporting standards for child health research, assess the robustness of the standards development process, and evaluate the dissemination of these standards.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, and Google to identify reporting standards for child health research studies. We assessed the adherence of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRG) by the identified reporting standards. We also assessed the use of the identified reporting standards by primary research studies, and the endorsement of the included reporting standards by journals.

RESULTS

We identified six reporting standards for child health research, including two under development. Among the four available standards their median adherence to the 18 main steps of the GDHRG was 58.35% (range: 27.8%-83.3%). None of these four reporting standards had been endorsed by pediatric journals indexed by the Science Citation Index. Only 26 primary research studies declared that they followed one of the reporting standards.

CONCLUSION

There is a quantitative and qualitative paucity of well-developed reporting standards for child health research. The available standards are also poorly implemented. This situation demands an urgent need to develop robust standards and ensure their implementation.

EvidenceMap: a three-level knowledge representation for medical evidence computation and comprehension

OBJECTIVE

To develop a computable representation for medical evidence and to contribute a gold standard dataset of annotated randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts, along with a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline for transforming free-text RCT evidence in PubMed into the structured representation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our representation, EvidenceMap, consists of 3 levels of abstraction: Medical Evidence Entity, Proposition and Map, to represent the hierarchical structure of medical evidence composition. Randomly selected RCT abstracts were annotated following EvidenceMap based on the consensus of 2 independent annotators to train an NLP pipeline. Via a user study, we measured how the EvidenceMap improved evidence comprehension and analyzed its representative capacity by comparing the evidence annotation with EvidenceMap representation and without following any specific guidelines.

RESULTS

Two corpora including 229 disease-agnostic and 80 COVID-19 RCT abstracts were annotated, yielding 12 725 entities and 1602 propositions. EvidenceMap saves users 51.9% of the time compared to reading raw-text abstracts. Most evidence elements identified during the freeform annotation were successfully represented by EvidenceMap, and users gave the enrollment, study design, and study Results sections mean 5-scale Likert ratings of 4.85, 4.70, and 4.20, respectively. The end-to-end evaluations of the pipeline show that the evidence proposition formulation achieves F1 scores of 0.84 and 0.86 in the adjusted random index score.

CONCLUSIONS

EvidenceMap extends the participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework into 3 levels of abstraction for transforming free-text evidence from the clinical literature into a computable structure. It can be used as an interoperable format for better evidence retrieval and synthesis and an interpretable representation to efficiently comprehend RCT findings.

Impact of active placebo controls on estimated drug effects in randomised trials: a systematic review of trials with both active placebo and standard placebo

BACKGROUND

An estimated 60% of pharmacological randomised trials use placebo control interventions to blind (i.e. mask) participants. However, standard placebos do not control for perceptible non-therapeutic effects (i.e. side effects) of the experimental drug, which may unblind participants. Trials rarely use active placebo controls, which contain pharmacological compounds designed to mimic the non-therapeutic experimental drug effects in order to reduce the risk of unblinding. A relevant improvement in the estimated effects of active placebo compared with standard placebo would imply that trials with standard placebo may overestimate experimental drug effects.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to estimate the difference in drug effects when an experimental drug is compared with an active placebo versus a standard placebo control intervention, and to explore causes for heterogeneity. In the context of a randomised trial, this difference in drug effects can be estimated by directly comparing the effect difference between the active placebo and standard placebo intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registries up to October 2020. We also searched reference lists and citations and contacted trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared an active placebo versus a standard placebo intervention. We considered trials both with and without a matching experimental drug arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data, assessed risk of bias, scored active placebos for adequacy and risk of unintended therapeutic effect, and categorised active placebos as unpleasant, neutral, or pleasant. We requested individual participant data from the authors of four cross-over trials published after 1990 and one unpublished trial registered after 1990. Our primary inverse-variance, random-effects meta-analysis used standardised mean differences (SMDs) of active versus standard placebo for participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment. A negative SMD favoured the active placebo. We stratified analyses by trial type (clinical or preclinical) and supplemented with sensitivity and subgroup analyses and meta-regression. In secondary analyses, we investigated observer-reported outcomes, harms, attrition, and co-intervention outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (1462 participants). We obtained individual participant data from four trials. Our primary analysis of participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment resulted in a pooled SMD of -0.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.04; I2 = 31%; 14 trials), with no clear difference between clinical and preclinical trials. Individual participant data contributed 43% of the weight of this analysis. Two of seven sensitivity analyses found more pronounced and statistically significant differences; for example, in the five trials with low overall risk of bias, the pooled SMD was -0.24 (95% CI -0.34 to -0.13). The pooled SMD of observer-reported outcomes was similar to the primary analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for harms was 3.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 6.07), and for attrition, 1.22 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.03). Co-intervention data were limited. Meta-regression found no statistically significant association with adequacy of the active placebo or risk of unintended therapeutic effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a statistically significant difference between active and standard placebo control interventions in our primary analysis, but the result was imprecise and the CI compatible with a difference ranging from important to irrelevant. Furthermore, the result was not robust, because two sensitivity analyses produced a more pronounced and statistically significant difference. We suggest that trialists and users of information from trials carefully consider the type of placebo control intervention in trials with high risk of unblinding, such as those with pronounced non-therapeutic effects and participant-reported outcomes.

Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls

During the last decades, the emergence of Bibliometrics and the progress in Pain research have led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies on the medical and scientific literature of pain (B/P). This study charts the evolution of the B/P literature published during the last 30 years. Using various searching techniques, 189 B/P studies published from 1993 to August 2022 were collected for analysis-half were published since 2018. Most of the selected B/P publications use classic bibliometric analysis of Pain in toto, while some focus on specific types of Pain with Headache/Migraine, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, and Cancer Pain dominating. Each study is characterized by the origin (geographical, economical, institutional, …) and the medical/scientific context over a specified time span to provide a detailed landscape of the Pain research literature. Some B/P studies have been developed to pinpoint difficulties in appropriately identifying the Pain literature or to highlight some general publishing pitfalls. Having observed that most of the recent B/P studies have integrated newly emergent software visualization tools (SVTs), we found an increase of anomalies and suggest that readers exercise caution when interpreting results in the B/P literature details.

The reporting of prognostic prediction models for obstetric care was poor: a cross-sectional survey of 10-year publications

BACKGROUND

To investigate the reporting of prognostic prediction model studies in obstetric care through a cross-sectional survey design.

METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify prognostic prediction model studies in obstetric care published from January 2011 to December 2020. The quality of reporting was assessed by the TRIPOD checklist. The overall adherence by study and the adherence by item were calculated separately, and linear regression analysis was conducted to explore the association between overall adherence and prespecified study characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 121 studies were included, while no study completely adhered to the TRIPOD. The results showed that the overall adherence was poor (median 46.4%), and no significant improvement was observed after the release of the TRIPOD (43.9 to 46.7%). Studies including both model development and external validation had higher reporting quality versus those including model development only (68.1% vs. 44.8%). Among the 37 items required by the TRIPOD, 10 items were reported adequately with an adherence rate over of 80%, and the remaining 27 items had an adherence rate ranging from 2.5 to 79.3%. In addition, 11 items had a report rate lower than 25.0% and even covered key methodological aspects, including blinding assessment of predictors (2.5%), methods for model-building procedures (4.5%) and predictor handling (13.5%), how to use the model (13.5%), and presentation of model performance (14.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a 10-year span, prognostic prediction studies in obstetric care continued to be poorly reported and did not improve even after the release of the TRIPOD checklist. Substantial efforts are warranted to improve the reporting of obstetric prognostic prediction models, particularly those that adhere to the TRIPOD checklist are highly desirable.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The need for quantitative criteria to appraise the quality of implementation research has recently been highlighted to improve methodological rigour. The Implementation Science Research development (ImpRes) tool and supplementary guide provide methodological guidance and recommendations on how to design high-quality implementation research. This protocol reports on the development of the Implementation Science Research Project Appraisal Criteria (ImpResPAC) tool, a quantitative appraisal tool, developed based on the structure and content of the ImpRes tool and supplementary guide, to evaluate the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study employs a three-stage sequential mixed-methods design. During stage 1, the research team will map core domains of the ImpRes tool, guidance and recommendations contained in the supplementary guide and within the literature, to ImpResPAC. In stage 2, an international multidisciplinary expert group, recruited through purposive sampling, will inform the refinement of ImpResPAC, including content, scoring system and user instructions. In stage 3, an extensive psychometric evaluation of ImpResPAC, that was created in stage 1 and refined in stage 2, will be conducted. The scaling assumptions (inter-item and item-total correlations), reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater) and validity (construct and convergent validity) will be investigated by applying ImpResPAC to 50 protocols published in Implementation Science. We envisage developing ImpResPAC in this way will provide implementation research stakeholders, primarily grant reviewers and educators, a comprehensive, transparent and fair appraisal of the conceptual and methodological quality of implementation research, increasing the likelihood of funding research that will generate knowledge and contribute to the advancement of the field.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will involve human participants. This study has been registered and minimal risk ethical clearance granted by The Research Ethics Office, King's College London (reference number MRA-20/21-20807). Participants will receive written information on the study via email and will provide e-consent if they wish to participate. We will use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences and publications).

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

CONSORT compliance in randomized surgical trials assessing the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effectiveness of preoperative drug management of patients undergoing mandibular third molar surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Investigate methodological quality of clinical trials in mandibular third molar surgery and its compliance with the consort statement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in five journal websites, chose the five scientific journals with the greatest impact factor in oral and maxillofacial surgery according to the SCImago Journal Rank. The compliance of studies with the CONSORT statement was assessed. Also, the risk of bias of each study was evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included. The average CONSORT compliance score was 25.50 (79.68%). Most studies were performed in the Americas (n = 14, 48.3%) and Asia (n = 10, 34.5%). Parallel-group (n=15, 51.7%) and split-mouth RCTs (n=11, 38%) were the most prevalent study design. An inverse correlation was observed between the year of publication and the number of Scopus citations (p<0.001), time between acceptance and publication (p<0.001), and time between study completion and publication (p=0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the correct use of guidelines, such as the CONSORT statement, is necessary to reduce methodological errors and possible bias, thereby ensuring reliable knowledge dissemination.

[Extensions of guidelines for reporting types of study in medicine]

The use of different guides to report types of study in the medical field has been widely disseminated for decades, however, their adherence and use by an important part of researchers is still limited, this has negatively impacted the dissemination of new findings, which has generated criticism regarding how medical research is designed, conducted and reported. Parallel to this, there are extensions to these guidelines which are little known and used by the personnel involved in research work, they focus on more specific approaches to report different types of studies, among which are: meta-analysis, systematic reviews, clinical trials randomized, diagnostic accuracy studies, observational studies, among others; for this reason, its promotion, knowledge, and use is of vital importance. The objective of this review is to synthesize the main extensions of the guidelines used in medical research; for this purpose, its main characteristics were reviewed, as well as application scenarios according to the level of evidence; Its adequate adherence will allow health personnel involved in research work to increase the transparency and quality of their findings, contemplate potential sources of bias, as well as the development of good practices for the presentation of their results according to the type of study selected.

Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review

Background A run-in period may increase adherence to intervention and reduce loss to follow-up. Whether use of a run-in period affects the magnitude of treatment effects is unknown. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis comparing treatment effects from 11 systematic reviews of cardiovascular prevention trials using a run-in period with matched trials not using a run-in period. We matched run-in with non-run-in trials by population, intervention, control, and outcome. We calculated a ratio of relative risks (RRRs) using a random-effects meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events, and the primary analysis was a matched comparison of clinical trials using a run-in period versus without a run-in period. We identified 66 run-in trials and 111 non-run-in trials (n=668 901). On meta-analysis there was no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of treatment effect between run-in trials (relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.80-0.87]) compared with non-run-in trials (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91]; RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]). There was no significant difference in the RRR for secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality (RRR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91-1.03]) or medication discontinuation because of adverse events (RRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.21]). Post hoc exploratory univariate meta-regression showed that on average a run-in period is associated with a statistically significant difference in treatment effect (RRR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]) for cardiovascular composite outcome, but this was not statistically significant on multivariable meta-regression analysis (RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]). Conclusions The use of a run-in period was not associated with a difference in the magnitude of treatment effect among cardiovascular prevention trials.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain

BACKGROUND

Interferential current is one of the most common electrotherapeutic modalities used in the treatment of painful conditions. Patients seeking medical help to reduce their musculoskeletal pain can be treated using interferential current.

OBJECTIVE

The current review aimed to analyze the recently available information regarding the efficacy of interferential current in alleviating the pain of musculoskeletal origin.

METHODS

This study used Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOas as data sources. The initial selection of the studies, thorough assessment of the full articles, and extraction of the necessary study characteristics were carried out by two independent reviewers. Another two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each included trial against 39 criteria. These criteria were integrated from several popular scales. Pain intensity-measured using the visual analog scale, numeric pain rating scale, or McGill Pain Questionnaire-was the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

This review included 35 trials of variable methodological quality from which 19 trials were selected for the meta-analysis. In general, interferential current alone versus placebo demonstrated a significant pain-relieving effect. On the other hand, interferential current showed no significant difference when added to standard treatment compared with placebo plus standard treatment or standard treatment alone. Similarly, interferential current showed no significant difference when compared with other single interventions (laser, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cryotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

Interferential current alone is better than placebo at discharge. However, the low number of studies raises suspicions about this conclusion. Interferential current alone or added to other interventions is not more effective than comparative treatments in relieving musculoskeletal pain.

Completeness of reporting and outcome switching in trials published in Indian journals from 2017 to 2019: A cross-sectional study

Context

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are among the cornerstones for generation of high-quality clinical evidence. However, incomplete or biased reporting of trials can hamper the process of review of trials and their results. Outcome switching, intentional, or otherwise leads to biased reporting and can result in false inferences.

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the completeness of reporting Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist items and detect if outcome switching had occurred.

Settings and Design

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the department of pharmacology.

Methods

Online editions of journals published by the Indian association of medical specialties from 2017 to 2019 were accessed, and the full-text versions of the published RCTs in them were downloaded. Reporting of each item in the CONSORT checklist was recorded. The effect of trial registration and CONSORT endorsement on reporting of key methodological parameters was also determined. Protocols of registered trials were accessed, and the outcome switching was assessed.

Statistical Analysis Used

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.

Results

Average completeness of reporting has significantly improved from 2017 to 2019. Major areas of underreporting were generalizability, protocol availability, trial registration, date of recruitment, allocation concealment, and the patient flow diagram. CONSORT endorsing journals had worse, whereas registered trials had better reporting of key methodological indicators. No overt switching of outcomes was observed in 84 out of 86 registered trials where trial protocols were available online for comparison.

Conclusions

Quality of clinical trial reporting in the Indian medical journals has improved but remains inadequate. CONSORT nonendorsement prevents completeness of trial reporting.

Reporting transparency and completeness in Trials: Paper 2 - reporting of randomised trials using registries was often inadequate and hindered the interpretation of results

OBJECTIVE

Registries are important data sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but reporting of how they are used may be inadequate. The objective was to describe the current adequacy of reporting of RCTs using registries.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a database of trials using registries from a scoping review supporting the development of the 2021 CONSORT extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Reporting completeness of 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items was assessed.

RESULTS

We assessed reports of 47 RCTs that used a registry, published between 2011 and 2018. Of the 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items, 6 were adequately reported in at least half of reports (2 in at least 80%). The 7 other items were related to routinely collected data source eligibility (32% adequate), data linkage (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for outcome assessment (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for participant recruitment (0% adequate), participant flow (9% adequate), registry funding (6% adequate) and interpretation of results in consideration of registry use (25% adequate).

CONCLUSION

Reporting of trials using registries was often poor, particularly details on data linkage and quality. Better reporting is needed for appropriate interpretation of the results of these trials.

Meta-Analysis of Carbohydrate Solution Intake during Prolonged Exercise in Adults: From the Last 45+ Years' Perspective

Carbohydrate (CHO) supplementation during prolonged exercise postpones fatigue. However, the optimum administration timing, dosage, type of CHO intake, and possible interaction of the ergogenic effect with athletes' cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are not clear. Ninety-six studies (from relevant databases based on predefined eligibility criteria) were selected for meta-analysis to investigate the acute effect of ≤20% CHO solutions on prolonged exercise performance. The between-subject standardized mean difference [SMD = ([mean post-value treatment group-mean post-value control group]/pooled variance)] was assessed. Overall, SMD [95% CI] of 0.43 [0.35, 0.51] was significant (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that SMD was reduced as the subjects' CRF level increased, with a 6-8% CHO solution composed of GL:FRU improving performance (exercise: 1-4 h); administration during the event led to a superior performance compared to administration before the exercise, with a 6-8% single-source CHO solution increasing performance in intermittent and 'stop and start' sports and an ~6% CHO solution appearing beneficial for 45-60 min exercises, but there were no significant differences between subjects' gender and age groups, varied CHO concentrations, doses, or types in the effect measurement. The evidence found was sound enough to support the hypothesis that CHO solutions, when ingested during endurance exercise, have ergogenic action and a possible crossover interaction with the subject's CRF.

Clinical impact and quality of randomized controlled trials involving interventions evaluating artificial intelligence prediction tools: a systematic review

The evidence of the impact of traditional statistical (TS) and artificial intelligence (AI) tool interventions in clinical practice was limited. This study aimed to investigate the clinical impact and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions evaluating TS, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) prediction tools. A systematic review on PubMed was conducted to identify RCTs involving TS/ML/DL tool interventions in the past decade. A total of 65 RCTs from 26,082 records were included. A majority of them had model development studies and generally good performance was achieved. The function of TS and ML tools in the RCTs mainly included assistive treatment decisions, assistive diagnosis, and risk stratification, but DL trials were only conducted for assistive diagnosis. Nearly two-fifths of the trial interventions showed no clinical benefit compared to standard care. Though DL and ML interventions achieved higher rates of positive results than TS in the RCTs, in trials with low risk of bias (17/65) the advantage of DL to TS was reduced while the advantage of ML to TS disappeared. The current applications of DL were not yet fully spread performed in medicine. It is predictable that DL will integrate more complex clinical problems than ML and TS tools in the future. Therefore, rigorous studies are required before the clinical application of these tools.

Recommended reporting items for epidemic forecasting and prediction research: The EPIFORGE 2020 guidelines

BACKGROUND

The importance of infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction research is underscored by decades of communicable disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Unlike other fields of medical research, such as clinical trials and systematic reviews, no reporting guidelines exist for reporting epidemic forecasting and prediction research despite their utility. We therefore developed the EPIFORGE checklist, a guideline for standardized reporting of epidemic forecasting research.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We developed this checklist using a best-practice process for development of reporting guidelines, involving a Delphi process and broad consultation with an international panel of infectious disease modelers and model end users. The objectives of these guidelines are to improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. The guidelines are not designed to advise scientists on how to perform epidemic forecasting and prediction research, but rather to serve as a standard for reporting critical methodological details of such studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines have been submitted to the EQUATOR network, in addition to hosting by other dedicated webpages to facilitate feedback and journal endorsement.

The Inconsistent and Inadequate Reporting Of Immune-Related Adverse Events in PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

Background

Immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) are of great interest and importance in clinical practice, and many deficiencies and controversies have been noted in the reporting of irAEs. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the current status of irAE reporting in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors and to attempt to explain and solve the current pitfalls associated with this reporting.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a systematic review across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The RCTs that compared PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors with standard treatments were included. The Harms extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) was used to evaluate the completeness of irAE reporting.

Results

A total of 44 articles and 23,759 patients were included in the analysis. The terminology of the irAEs changed over time (p = .01) and was different among immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (p = .005). Twenty‐two of the studies provided a definition of irAE, but only four of them concretely addressed this definition. The incidence of any grade of irAEs ranged from 16.9% to 96%, whereas grade 3–4 irAE ranged from 2% to 23%. The RCTs with combined therapy exhibited a higher incidence of grade 3–4 irAEs (p = .012). Thirty‐two studies reported irAEs in the control arms, whereas seven studies reported irAEs only in the experimental arms. Respiratory, endocrine, and gastrointestinal disorders were the most commonly reported irAEs. IrAEs were generally neglected in the introduction or conclusion sections in all of the study reviews and were never subjected to subgroup analyses. Moreover, withdrawals due to severe irAEs, as well as clarifications of the irAE collection methods, were also poorly reported. RCTs using combination therapies in the experimental arms were associated with a higher reporting quality (p = .032). However, the completeness of the reporting did not improve over the last 5 years (p = .076).

Conclusion

The reporting of irAEs was inadequate, and there are still inconsistencies and controversies in the reporting of irAEs. In the future, authors should be encouraged to adhere to the Harms extension of the CONSORT statement.

Implications for Practice

PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors profoundly changed the landscape of cancer treatment, and thousands of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were active or completed over the past decade. However, different from chemotherapy or targeted therapy, the profile of immune‐related adverse effects (irAE) was unique. An understanding of irAEs is developed mainly from clinical trials; however, inconsistencies and controversies between trials were noted. This study primarily reviewed the evolution of irAE terminology and definitions and evaluated the reporting quality of each RCT. It was found that RCTs using combined immunotherapy were associated with higher quality of irAE reporting. This article identifies the controversies and deficiencies in current irAE reporting and provides possible explanations and suggestions for these inadequacies.

Reporting of immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) has not yet been standardized. This review evaluates the current state of irAE reporting in clinical trials, focusing on shortcomings associated with this reporting and possible solutions.

A multiyear systematic survey of the quality of reporting for randomised trials in dentistry, neurology and geriatrics published in journals of Spain and Latin America

BACKGROUND

The Iberoamerican Cochrane Network is currently developing an extensive project to identify Spanish-language journals that publish original clinical research in Spain and Latin America. The project is called BADERI (Database of Iberoamerican Essays and Journal) and feeds the research articles, mainly randomised clinical trials (RCTs), into CENTRAL (Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials). This study aims to assess the quality of reporting of RCTs published in Spanish and Latin American journals for three clinical fields and assess changes over time.

METHODS

We did a systematic survey with time trend analysis of RCTs for dentistry, geriatrics, and neurology. These fields were chosen for pragmatic reasons as they had not yet been completed in BADERI. After screening RCTs from 1990 to 2018 for randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, we extracted data for 23 CONSORT items. The primary outcome was the total score of the 23 predefined CONSORT 2010 items for each RCT (score range from 0 to 34). The secondary outcome measure was the score for each one of these 23 items.

RESULTS

A total of 392 articles from 1990 to 2018 were included as follows: dentistry (282), neurology (80), and geriatrics (30). We found that the overall compliance score for the CONSORT items included in this study for all 392 RCTs analysed was 12.6 on a scale with a maximum score of 34. With time, the quality of reporting improved slightly for all RCTs. None of the articles achieved the complete individual CONSORT item compliance score. The lowest overall compliance percentage was for item 10 (Randomisation implementation) and item 24 (Protocol registration), with a dismal 1% compliance across all included RCTs, regardless of country.

CONCLUSIONS

CONSORT compliance is very poor in the 392 analysed RCTs. The impact of the CONSORT statement on improving the completeness of RCT reporting in Latin America and Spain is not clear. Iberoamerican journals should become more involved in endorsing and enforcing adherence to the CONSORT guidelines.

Common Methodological Problems in Randomized Controlled Trials of Preventive Interventions

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard in evaluating whether intervention results are in line with causal claims of beneficial effects. However, given that poor design and incorrect analysis may lead to biased outcomes, simply employing an RCT is not enough to say an intervention "works." This paper applies a subset of the Society for Prevention Research (SPR) Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research, with a focus on internal validity (making causal inferences) to determine the degree to which RCTs of preventive interventions are well-designed and analyzed, and whether authors provide a clear description of the methods used to report their study findings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of 851 RCTs published from 2010 to 2020 and reviewed by the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development web-based registry of scientifically proven and scalable interventions. We used Blueprints' evaluation criteria that correspond to a subset of SPR's standards of evidence. Only 22% of the sample satisfied important criteria for minimizing biases that threaten internal validity. Overall, we identified an average of 1-2 methodological weaknesses per RCT. The most frequent sources of bias were problems related to baseline non-equivalence (i.e., differences between conditions at randomization) or differential attrition (i.e., differences between completers versus attritors or differences between study conditions that may compromise the randomization). Additionally, over half the sample (51%) had missing or incomplete tests to rule out these potential sources of bias. Most preventive intervention RCTs need improvement in rigor to permit causal inference claims that an intervention is effective. Researchers also must improve reporting of methods and results to fully assess methodological quality. These advancements will increase the usefulness of preventive interventions by ensuring the credibility and usability of RCT findings.

Intervention reporting of clinical trials published in high-impact cardiology journals: effect of the TIDieR checklist and guide

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest-level of evidence among primary research in cardiovascular medicine. Yet, even the best trial may be less useful if it fails to provide an accurate means of reproducibility. Unfortunately, discrepancies in the standards of trial reporting have been persistent in previous trials. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist aims to improve research efficacy by setting standards for quality intervention reporting and reproducibility. The goal of this study was to assess adherence to the TIDieR checklist among RCTs published in cardiovascular health journals. We also compared the quality of intervention reporting before and after the publication of TIDieR.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, methodological study analysed 101 trials published within high-impact cardiology journals. Our primary objective was to assess overall adherence to the TIDieR checklist. Our secondary objective was to use an interrupted time-series analysis to determine if intervention reporting increased following the publication of TIDieR in March 2014. Additionally, we used generalised estimating equations to identify trial characteristics associated with intervention reporting.

RESULTS

Trials in our sample reported 8.6/12 TIDieR checklist items, on average. The most under-reported items were those for describing the expertise of the interventionists and for describing the location of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Improved outcome reporting and intervention reproducibility among RCTs are greatly needed in cardiovascular medicine. Clinicians and researchers should advocate for the ethical publication of complete, translatable and replicable clinical research results.

Sample Size Estimation in Clinical Research: From Randomized Controlled Trials to Observational Studies

Sample size determination is an essential step in planning a clinical study. It is critical to understand that different study designs need different methods of sample size estimation. Although there is a vast literature discussing sample size estimation, incorrect or improper formulas continue to be applied. This article reviews basic statistical concepts in sample size estimation, discusses statistical considerations in the choice of a sample size for randomized controlled trials and observational studies, and provides strategies for reducing sample size when planning a study. To assist clinical researchers in performing sample size calculations, we have developed an online calculator for common clinical study designs. The calculator is available at http://riskcalc.org:3838/samplesize/. Finally, we offer our recommendations on reporting sample size determination in clinical studies.

Reporting quality of trial protocols improved for non-regulated interventions but not regulated interventions: A repeated cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the adherence of randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions (including dietary interventions, surgical procedures, behavioural and lifestyle interventions, and exercise programmes) in comparison with regulated interventions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement.

METHODS

We conducted a repeated cross-sectional investigation in a random sample of RCT protocols approved in 2012 (n = 257) or 2016 (n = 292) by research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, or Canada. We investigated the proportion of accurately reported SPIRIT checklist items in protocols of trials with non-regulated as compared to regulated interventions.

RESULTS

Overall, 131 (24%) of trial protocols tested non-regulated interventions. In 2012, the median proportion of SPIRIT items reported in these protocols (59%, interquartile range [IQR], 53%-69%) was lower than in protocols with regulated interventions (median, 74%, IQR, 66%-80%). In 2016, the reporting quality of protocols with non-regulated interventions (median, 75%, IQR, 62%-83%) improved to the level of regulated intervention protocols, which had not changed on average.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of RCT protocols evaluating non-regulated interventions improved between 2012 and 2016, although remained suboptimal. SPIRIT recommendations need to be further endorsed by researchers, ethics committees, funding agencies, and journals to optimize reporting of RCT protocols.

A Cross-sectional literature survey showed the reporting quality of multicenter randomized controlled trials should be improved

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multicenter design, particularly whether necessary information related to multicenter characteristics was adequately reported.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Through a search of 4 international electronic databases, we identified multicenter RCTs published in English from 1975 to 2019. Reporting quality was assessed by the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist (37 items) and by a self-designed multicenter-specific checklist (27 items covering multicenter design, implement and analysis). The scores of trials published in three time periods (1975-1995; 1996-2009; and 2010-2019) were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 2,844 multicenter RCTs were included. For the CONSORT checklist, the mean (standard deviation) reporting score was 24.1 (5.5), 12 items were assessed as excellent (>90%), 12 items as good (50%-90%), and 13 items as poor (<50%). For the multicenter checklist, the reporting score was 3.9 (2.2), only 3 items were excellent or good, and the remaining 24 items were poor. Time period comparison showed that reporting quality improved over time, especially after the CONSORT 2010 issued.

CONCLUSION

Although CONSORT appears to have enhanced the reporting quality of multicenter RCTs, further improvement is needed. A "CONSORT extension for multicenter trials" should be developed.