Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: A systematic review

Selective outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of outcome reporting bias (ORB, i.e. selective reporting according to the results observed) across primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 3 February 2021 for reviews published 2008-2020 with at least one RCT of a therapeutic intervention, for participants with stroke or TIA, and a safety or efficacy outcome. We took a random sample of these RCTs and included those with a trial registry record or protocol published before reporting results. Two reviewers assessed discrepancies in outcome reporting across the trial registry record, protocol, statistical analysis plan, and publication for each RCT, using the classification system designed by the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials group.

RESULTS

Of 600 RCTs, we identified a trial registry record in 120 (20%), a protocol in 28 (5%), and a statistical analysis plan in 5 (1%) with 123 (21%) distinct RCTs being eligible for assessment: 110 (89%, 95% CI 83-94) were at no risk, 7 (6%, 95% CI 3-11) RCTs were at low risk, and 6 (5%, 95% CI 2-10) were at high risk of ORB.

DISCUSSION

The prevalence of ORB in primary outcomes was low in stroke/TIA RCTs that were included in Cochrane reviews and had an identifiable trial registry record or protocol. Concerningly, we were unable to identify a trial registry record or protocol in most of our sample.

CONCLUSION

Work is needed to further reduce ORB in stroke/TIA RCTs and explore the generalisability of these findings to RCTs outside of Cochrane reviews or without a registry record or protocol, as well as to secondary outcomes.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials evaluating non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are subject to bias if they lack methodological quality. Furthermore, optimal and transparent reporting of RCT findings aids their critical appraisal and interpretation. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the report quality of RCTs of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and to analyze the factors influencing the quality.

METHODS

By searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases RCTs published from inception to 2022 evaluating the efficacy of NOACs on AF were collected. By using the 2010 Consolidated Standards for Reporting Tests (CONSORT) statement, the overall quality of each report was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two RCTs were retrieved in this study. The median of overall quality score in 2010 was 14 (range: 8.5-20). The extent of compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guideline differed substantially across items: 9 items were reported adequately (more than 90%), and 3 were reported adequately in less than 10% of trials. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the higher reporting scores were associated with higher journal impact factor (P = 0.01), international collaboration (P < 0.01), and Sources of trial funding (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a large number of randomized controlled trials of NOACs for the treatment of AF were published after the CONSORT statement in 2010, the overall quality is still not satisfactory, thus weakening their potential utility and may mislead clinical decisions. This survey provides the first hint for researchers conducting trials of NOACs for AF to improve the quality of reports and to actively apply the CONSORT statement.

Design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules are suboptimal: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review. Impact studies of cardiovascular CPRs were identified by forward citation and electronic database searches. We categorized the design of impact studies as appropriate for randomized and nonrandomized experiments, excluding uncontrolled before-after study. For impact studies with appropriate study design, we assessed the quality of methods and reporting. We compared the quality of methods and reporting between impact and matched control studies.

RESULTS

We found 110 impact studies of cardiovascular CPRs. Of these, 65 (59.1%) used inappropriate designs. Of 45 impact studies with appropriate design, 31 (68.9%) had substantial risk of bias. Mean number of reporting domains that impact studies with appropriate study design adhered to was 10.2 of 21 domains (95% confidence interval, 9.3 and 11.1). The quality of methods and reporting was not clearly different between impact and matched control studies.

CONCLUSION

We found most impact studies either used inappropriate study design, had substantial risk of bias, or poorly complied with reporting guidelines. This appears to be a common feature of complex interventions. Users of CPRs should critically evaluate evidence showing the effectiveness of CPRs.

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

BACKGROUND

Methodological studies - studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports - play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

MAIN BODY

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a "frequently asked questions" format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

CONCLUSION

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Quality of reporting for randomised clinical trials published in Latin American and Spanish journals: A protocol for a systematic survey of three clinical specialities

INTRODUCTION

Quality of reporting refers to how published articles communicate how the research was done and what was found. Gaps and imprecisions of reporting hamper the assessment of the methodological quality and internal and external validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are a set of evidence-based recommendations of the minimum elements to be included in the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure a complete and transparent account of what was done, how it was done and what was found. Few studies have been conducted on the impact of CONSORT on RCTs published in Latin American and Spanish journals. We aim to assess the reporting quality of RCTs of three clinical specialities published in Spanish and Latin American journals, as well as to assess changes over time and associations of quality with journal and country indicators.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic survey of all RCTs published in Spanish-language journals in three clinical fields (dentistry, neurology and geriatrics) from 1990 to 2018. We will include RCTs from previous work that has identified all RCTs on these medical fields published in Spain and Latin America. We will update this work via handsearching of relevant journals. Assessment of quality of reporting will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the CONSORT 2010 Statement. We will also extract journal and country indicators. We will conduct descriptive statistics and secondary analyses considering the year, country, and journal of publication, among others.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Universidad de Santiago de Chile's ethics committee approved the protocol. We will disseminate the results of this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings. We expect to raise awareness among researchers, journal editors and funders on the importance of training in reporting guidelines and using them from the inception of RCT protocols.

Reporting quality of pilot clinical trials in chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis: a methodological survey

BACKGROUND

The conduct of high-quality pilot studies can help inform the success of larger clinical trials. Guidelines have been recently developed for the reporting of pilot trials.

OBJECTIVE

This methodological survey evaluates the completeness of reporting in pilot randomized controlled trials in chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis (HD patients) and explores factors associated with better completion of reporting.

METHODS

The authors searched Pubmed on July 1, 2018, for all pilot trials conducted in HD patients. Reporting quality was assessed against the 40-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Pilot Trials. Study factors including year and country of publication, intervention, number of centers, type of funding, and journal endorsement of CONSORT were also examined.

RESULTS

The mean number of items reported from the CONSORT extension for pilot trials across all included articles was 18.4 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.4). In the adjusted analysis, studies reported in later years (IRR = 1.026, 95% CI [1.018, 1.034], p < 0.001) and an increase of 20 persons in sample size (adjusted IRR = 1.021, 95% CI [1.010, 1.031], p < 0.001) were associated with a significantly higher number of CONSORT pilot items reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Current reporting completeness of pilot trials in HD patients is suboptimal. Endorsing the CONSORT extension specific to pilot and feasibility studies and ensuring that pilot trials focus on the feasibility objectives may improve reporting completeness of these trials.