Reporting trends of randomised controlled trials in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review

The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard study design used to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The reporting quality of RCTs is of fundamental importance for readers to appropriately analyse and understand the design and results of studies which are often labelled as practice changing papers. The aim of this article is to assess the reporting standards of a representative sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2019 and 2020 in four of the highest impact factor general medical journals. A systematic review of the electronic database Medline was conducted. Eligible RCTs included those published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal between January 1, 2019, and June 9, 2020. The study protocol was registered on medRxiv ( https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.06.20147074 ). Of a total eligible sample of 497 studies, 50 full-text RCTs were reviewed against the CONSORT 2010 statement and relevant extensions where necessary. The mean adherence to the CONSORT checklist was 90% (SD 9%). There were specific items on the CONSORT checklist which had recurring suboptimal adherence, including in title (item 1a, 70% adherence), randomisation (items 9 and 10, 56% and 30% adherence) and outcomes and estimation (item 17b, 62% adherence). Amongst a sample of RCTs published in four of the highest impact factor general medical journals, there was good overall adherence to the CONSORT 2010 statement. However there remains significant room for improvement in areas such as description of allocation concealment and implementation of randomisation.

Temporal Trends and Factors Associated With the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Background

Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of treatment response in heart failure. We assessed temporal trends in and factors associated with inclusion of PROs in heart failure randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods and Results

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and July 2020 in journals with an impact factor ≥10. We assessed temporal trends using the Jonckheere‐Terpstra test and conducted multivariable logistic regression to explore trial characteristics associated with PRO inclusion. We assessed the quality of PRO reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. Of 417 RCTs included, PROs were reported in 226 (54.2%; 95% CI, 49.3%–59.1%), with increased reporting between 2000 and 2020 (P<0.001). The odds of PRO inclusion were greater in RCTs that were published in recent years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per year, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12; P<0.001), multicenter (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03–3.46; P=0.040), medium‐sized (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26–4.40; P=0.008), coordinated in Central and South America (aOR, 5.93; 95% CI, 1.14–30.97; P=0.035), and tested health service (aOR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49–6.55; P=0.003), device/surgical (aOR, 6.66; 95% CI, 3.15–14.05; P<0.001), or exercise (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.81–12.00; P=0.001) interventions. RCTs reported a median of 4 (interquartile interval , 3–6) of a possible of 11 CONSORT PRO items.

Conclusions

Just over half of all heart failure RCTs published in high impact factor journals between 2000 and 2020 included PROs, with increased inclusion of PROs over time. Trials that were large, tested pharmaceutical interventions, and coordinated in North America / Europe had lower adjusted odds of reporting PROs relative to other trials. The quality of PRO reporting was modest.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Aspirin in primary prevention: the triumph of clinical judgement over complex equations

Aspirin, in 2017, has celebrated its 120th birthday. The efficacy and safety of low-dose aspirin in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is well supported by many studies, instead in primary prevention it remains controversial, especially in the aftermath of the publication in 2018 of three novel primary prevention randomized clinical trials, showing that the benefit of low-dose aspirin, although additive to that of statin, is counterbalanced by an excess of (mainly gastrointestinal) bleeding events. The signal for a net benefit seems to be even more controversial in the elderly starting aspirin after the age of 70 years. While international guidelines have promptly downgraded their recommendations to more conservative indications, the practicing clinician is called to make the effort to individualize the treatment, after careful evaluation of the haemorrhagic risk vis-a-vis the risk to develop, in the mid-term and long-term follow-up, major cardiovascular events or cancer. This is a particularly complex task, given the different immediate and long-term impact of diverse outcomes on health, the dynamic nature over time of the benefit/risk balance, prompting periodic re-assessments of its indication, and the interindividual variability in aspirin response. The chemopreventive properties of aspirin, anticipated by a large body of epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, are awaiting their final confirmation by the long-term follow-up of the latest trials specifically designed to assess this endpoint, with the expectation to subvert the delicate benefit/risk balance of aspirin in primary prevention. This review is intended to provide an interpretation of past and current evidence to guide clinical decision making on the contemporary patient.

Association of Aspirin Use for Primary Prevention With Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Embase were searched on Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through November 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials enrolling at least 1000 participants with no known cardiovascular disease and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Included studies compared aspirin use with no aspirin (placebo or no treatment).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were screened and extracted independently by both investigators. Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was any major bleeding (defined by the individual studies).

RESULTS

A total of 13 trials randomizing 164 225 participants with 1 050 511 participant-years of follow-up were included. The median age of trial participants was 62 years (range, 53-74), 77 501 (47%) were men, 30 361 (19%) had diabetes, and the median baseline risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome was 9.2% (range, 2.6%-15.9%). Aspirin use was associated with significant reductions in the composite cardiovascular outcome compared with no aspirin (57.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 61.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; number needed to treat, 265). Aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events compared with no aspirin (23.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 16.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; number needed to harm, 210).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The use of aspirin in individuals without cardiovascular disease was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding. This information may inform discussions with patients about aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and bleeding.

Quality of critical care clinical practice guidelines: Assessment with AGREE II instrument

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are cornerstones for the management of critically ill patients. Numerous CPGs have been generated in critical care medicine, but their qualities have never been systematically appraised. The aim of the present study was to systematically assess the quality of critical care CPGs.

DESIGN

A systematic electronic search was performed in PubMed and Scopus. All critical care CPGs were included for analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENTS

Not applicable.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS

The Appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was employed to appraise the quality. CPGs were assessed independently by three raters and intraclass correlation coefficient to represent the agreement among raters.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 89 CPGs were included for quantitative analysis. The results showed that domain 1 (scope and purpose) had the highest scores (0.93, IQR: 0.89-0.98) and domain 2 (stakeholder involvement) had the lowest scores (0.37, IQR: 0.30-0.46). The overall score was 0.83 (IQR: 0.67-0.83). Publication year was not associated with scaled scores in each domain. Domain 2 (stakeholder involvement) was significantly associated with the number of societies (coefficient: 0.702, p = 0.033). Also, greater number of societies were associated with higher scaled scores of domain 3 (coefficient: 0.768, p = 0.027), 4 (coefficient: 0.730, p = 0.029) and 5 (coefficient: 0.995, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that the reporting quality of critical care CPGs were suboptimal. The reporting quality varied across the six domains, with the highest quality in domain 1 and lowest quality in domain 2. Strenuous efforts need to be made to improve the reporting of critical care CPGs.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Association Between Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors, Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors With All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The comparative clinical efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for treatment of type 2 diabetes is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors on mortality and cardiovascular end points using network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and published meta-analyses from inception through October 11, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials enrolling participants with type 2 diabetes and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included, for which SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors were compared with either each other or placebo or no treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were screened by 1 investigator and extracted in duplicate by 2 investigators. A Bayesian hierarchical network meta-analysis was performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome: all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes: cardiovascular (CV) mortality, heart failure (HF) events, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, and stroke; safety end points: adverse events and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

This network meta-analysis of 236 trials randomizing 176 310 participants found SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute risk difference [RD], -1.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.71 to 0.89]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.6%; HR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.81 to 0.94]) were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality than the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, -0.9%; HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.68 to 0.90]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.5%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.96]) were associated with lower mortality than were DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors were not significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (absolute RD, 0.1%; HR, 1.02 [95% CrI, 0.94 to 1.11]) than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, -0.8%; HR, 0.79 [95% CrI, 0.69 to 0.91]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.5%; HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.94]) were significantly associated with lower CV mortality than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors were significantly associated with lower rates of HF events (absolute RD, -1.1%; HR, 0.62 [95% CrI, 0.54 to 0.72]) and MI (absolute RD, -0.6%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.97]) than were the control groups. GLP-1 agonists were associated with a higher risk of adverse events leading to trial withdrawal than were SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, 5.8%; HR, 1.80 [95% CrI, 1.44 to 2.25]) and DPP-4 inhibitors (absolute RD, 3.1%; HR, 1.93 [95% CrI, 1.59 to 2.35]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this network meta-analysis, the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was associated with lower mortality than DPP-4 inhibitors or placebo or no treatment. Use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with lower mortality than placebo or no treatment.

Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review

Background

Our objective was to assess the frequency of data extraction errors and its potential impact on results in systematic reviews. Furthermore, we evaluated the effect of different extraction methods, reviewer characteristics and reviewer training on error rates and results.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of methodological literature in PubMed, Cochrane methodological registry, and by manual searches (12/2016). Studies were selected by two reviewers independently. Data were extracted in standardized tables by one reviewer and verified by a second.

Results

The analysis included six studies; four studies on extraction error frequency, one study comparing different reviewer extraction methods and two studies comparing different reviewer characteristics. We did not find a study on reviewer training. There was a high rate of extraction errors (up to 50%). Errors often had an influence on effect estimates. Different data extraction methods and reviewer characteristics had moderate effect on extraction error rates and effect estimates.

Conclusion

The evidence base for established standards of data extraction seems weak despite the high prevalence of extraction errors. More comparative studies are needed to get deeper insights into the influence of different extraction methods.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0431-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in cardiovascular journals

Objective

This study investigated the policies of cardiac and cardiovascular system journals concerning clinical trial registration and guideline adoption to understand how frequently journals use these mechanisms to improve transparency, trial reporting and overall study quality.

Methods

We selected the top 20 (by impact factor) journals cited in the subcategory ‘Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems’ of the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports to extract journal policies concerning the 17 guidelines we identified. In addition, trial and systematic review registration adherence statements were extracted. 300 randomised controlled trials published in 2016 in the top 20 journals were searched for clinical trial registry numbers and CONSORT diagrams.

Results

Of the 19 cardiac and cardiovascular system journals included in our analysis, eight journals (42%) did not require or recommend trial or review registration. Seven (37%) did not recommend or require a single guideline within their instructions to authors. Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials guidelines (10/19, 53%) were recommended or required most often. Of the trials surveyed, 122/285 (42.8%) published a CONSORT diagram in their manuscript, while 236/292 (80.8%) published a trial registry number.

Discussion

Cardiac and cardiovascular system journals infrequently require, recommend or enforce the use of reporting guidelines. Furthermore, too few require or enforce the use of clinical trial registration. Cardiology journal editors should consider guideline adoption due to their potential to limit bias and increase transparency.

Drug treatment effects on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Clinical drug trials in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction have failed to demonstrate improvements in mortality.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCT) assessing pharmacological treatments in patients with heart failure with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction≥40% from January 1996 to May 2016. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, exercise capacity (6-min walk distance, exercise duration, VO₂ max), quality of life and biomarkers (B-type natriuretic peptide, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled relative risks (RR) for the binary outcomes, and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% CI.

Results

We included data from 25 RCTs comprising data for 18101 patients. All-cause mortality was reduced with beta-blocker therapy compared with placebo (RR: 0.78, 95%CI 0.65 to 0.94, p=0.008). There was no effect seen with ACE inhibitors, aldosterone receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and other drug classes, compared with placebo. Similar results were observed for cardiovascular mortality. No single drug class reduced heart failure hospitalisation compared with placebo.

Conclusion

The efficacy of treatments in patients with heart failure and an LV ejection fraction≥40% differ depending on the type of therapy, with beta-blockers demonstrating reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further trials are warranted to confirm treatment effects of beta-blockers in this patient group.

Long-term outcomes in patients with critical limb ischemia and heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction

The impact of heart failure (HF) on long-term survival in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) has not been well described. Outcomes stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) are also unknown. A single center retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent treatment for CLI from 2006 to 2013. Baseline demographics, procedural data and outcomes were analyzed. HF diagnosis was based on appropriate signs and symptoms as well as results of non-invasive testing. Among 381 CLI patients, 120 (31%) had a history of HF and 261 (69%) had no history of heart failure (no-HF). Within the HF group, 74 (62%) had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and 46 (38%) had HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The average EF for those with no-HF, HFpEF and HFrEF were 59±13% vs 56±9% vs 30±9%, respectively. The likelihood of having concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) was lowest in the no-HF group (43%), higher in the HFpEF group (70%) and highest in the HFrEF group (83%) ( p=0.001). Five-year survival was on average twofold higher in the no-HF group (43%) compared to both the HFpEF (19%, p=0.001) and HFrEF groups (24%, p=0.001). Long-term survival rates did not differ between the two HF groups ( p=0.50). There was no difference in 5-year freedom from major amputation or freedom from major adverse limb events between the no-HF, HFpEF and HFrEF groups, respectively. Overall, the combination of CLI and HF is associated with poor 5-year survival, independent of the degree of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.