Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome

Tuberculosis treatment intervention trials in Africa: A cross-sectional bibliographic study and spatial analysis

Background

Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB) poses a substantial burden in sub-Saharan Africa and is the leading cause of death amongst infectious diseases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. We aimed to describe published TB treatment trials conducted in Africa.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of published TB trials conducted in at least one African country. In November 2019, we searched three databases using the validated Africa search filter and Cochrane’s sensitive trial string. Published RCTs conducted in at least one African country were included for analysis. Records were screened for eligibility. Co-reviewers assisted with duplicate data extraction. Extracted data included: the country where studies were conducted, publication dates, ethics statement, trial registration number, participant’s age range. We used Cochrane’s Risk of Bias criteria to assess methodological quality.

Results

We identified 10,495 records; 175 trials were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were published between 1952 and 2019. The median sample size was 206 participants (interquartile range: 73–657). Most trials were conducted in South Africa (n = 83) and were drug therapy trials (n = 130). First authors were from 30 countries globally. South Africa had the most first authors (n = 55); followed by the United States of America (USA) (n = 28) and Great Britain (n = 14) with fewer other African countries contributing to the first author tally. Children under 13 years of age eligible to participate in the trials made up 17/175 trials (9.71%). International governments (n = 29) were the most prevalent funders. Ninety-four trials provided CONSORT flow diagrams. Methodological quality such as allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported or unclear in most trials.

Conclusions

By mapping African TB trials, we were able to identify potential research gaps. Many of the global north’s researchers were found to be the lead authors in these African trials. Few trials tested behavioural interventions compared to drugs, and far fewer tested interventions on children compared to adults to improve TB outcomes. Lastly, funders and researchers should ensure better methodological quality reporting of trials.

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Restless Legs Syndrome Based on the CONSORT Statement

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of modern medical research, and their reporting may not always be optimal. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is an evidence-based means to improve the quality of RCTs’ reporting by providing a checklist of recommended items.

The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs on the restless legs syndrome (RLS), based on a checklist arising from the CONSORT statement.

Methods

Medical electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving patients with RLS. Inclusion criteria were follows: articles must have been published in English and RLS patients must have been randomized into a minimum of two treatment cohorts of different medicinal orientations. CONSORT-recommended items were marked as “reported” or “not reported,” and an overall CONSORT compliance metric was calculated. Comparisons among different time periods, CONSORT-endorsing and non-endorsing, and different levels of impact factor journals were made.

Results

Fifty-four eligible trials, published in 21 different scientific journals, were found. The average CONSORT compliance score was 56.6% (23.68–84.21%). CONSORT-endorsing journals had a mean CONSORT compliance of 58.47%, whereas non-endorsing journals had a mean CONSORT compliance of 50.4%. The median CONSORT compliance for articles published in low- (IF<2), medium- (IF 2-7), and high-ranked (IF>7) journals was 52.63, 56.57, and 59.21%, respectively. Only 14 of the 38 CONSORT items (36.8%) were reported in >75% of the articles.

Discussion

This study shows that the reporting of RLS-related RCTs is suboptimal, regardless of the time period, the quality of the publishing journal, and the endorsing or non-endorsing of the CONSORT statement.

Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Neurological Diseases Conducted in China

Objectives

To investigate the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for neurological disorders conducted in China before and after the implementation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines.

Methods

The quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from CONSORT and STRICTA. CONSORT and STRICTA were developed in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Thus, for the date of publication we selected 2-year periods, at 5-yearly intervals: 1994–1995; 1999–2000; 2004–2005 and 2009–2010. These selections cover the periods before the publication dates of both guidelines (1996, 2001) and at least 3 years afterwards, and provide reasonably up-to-date data. We calculated the total score for each guideline and compared reported differences during different date ranges.

Results

For CONSORT items (maximum score 8), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994–1995 and 1999–2000 combined (2.5±0.6) and 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 combined (3.0±0.9) (difference 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). For STRICTA items (maximum score 17), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994–1995 and 1999–2000 combined (8.9±1.8) and 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 combined (10.3±1.6) (difference 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9).

Conclusions

The quality of reporting for studies of acupuncture for neurological disorders has generally improved since the implementation of STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist

BACKGROUND

Reviews indicate that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the medical literature is less than optimal, poor to moderate, and require improving. However, the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs is unknown. As a result, the aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of chiropractic RCTs and identify factors associated with better reporting quality. We hypothesized that quality of reporting of RCTs was influenced by industry funding, positive findings, larger sample sizes, latter year of publication and publication in non-chiropractic journals.

METHODS

RCTs published between 2005 and 2014 were sourced from clinical trial registers, PubMed and the Cochrane Reviews. RCTs were included if they involved high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) spinal and/or extremity manipulation and were conducted by a chiropractor or within a chiropractic department. Data extraction, and reviews were conducted by all authors independently. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

OUTCOMES

a 39-point overall quality of reporting score checklist was developed based on the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statements. Four key methodological items, based on allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors, and use of intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs were included. The overall quality of reporting score ranged between 10 and 33 (median score 26.0; IQR = 8.00). Allocation concealment, blinding of participants and assessors and ITT analysis were reported in 31 (87 %), 16 (46 %), 25 (71 %) and 21 (60 %) of the 35 RCTs respectively. Items most underreported were from the CONSORT for Non-Pharmacological Treatments statement. Multivariate regression analysis, revealed that year of publication (t32 = 5.17, p = 0.000, 95 % CI: 0.76, 1.76), and sample size (t32 = 3.01, p = 0.005, 95 % CI: 1.36, 7.02), were the only two factors associated with reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of reporting RCTs in chiropractic ranged from poor to excellent, improving between 2005 and 2014. This study suggests that quality of reporting, was influenced by year of publication and sample size but not journal type, funding source or outcome positivity. Reporting of some key methodological items and uptake of items from the CONSORT Extension for Non-Pharmacological Treatments items was suboptimal. Future recommendations were made.

Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was published in October 2007 to improve quality of reporting of observational studies. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of the STROBE statement on observational study reporting and study design quality in the nephrology literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

SETTING & POPULATION

European and North American, Pre-dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) cohort studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Studies assessing the association between CKD and mortality in the elderly (>65 years) published from 1st January 2002 to 31st December 2013 were included, following systematic searching of MEDLINE & EMBASE.

PREDICTOR

Time period before and after the publication of the STROBE statement.

OUTCOME

Quality of study reporting using the STROBE statement and quality of study design using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools.

RESULTS

37 papers (11 Pre & 26 Post STROBE) were identified from 3621 potential articles. Only four of the 22 STROBE items and their sub-criteria (objectives reporting, choice of quantitative groups and description of and carrying out sensitivity analysis) showed improvements, with the majority of items showing little change between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement. Pre- and post-period analysis revealed a Manuscript STROBE score increase (median score 77.8% (Inter-quartile range [IQR], 64.7-82.0) vs 83% (IQR, 78.4-84.9, p = 0.05). There was no change in quality of study design with identical median scores in the two periods for NOS (Manuscript NOS score 88.9), SIGN (Manuscript SIGN score 83.3) and CASP (Manuscript CASP score 91.7) tools.

LIMITATIONS

Only 37 Studies from Europe and North America were included from one medical specialty. Assessment of study design largely reliant on good reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights continuing deficiencies in the reporting of STROBE items and their sub-criteria in cohort studies in nephrology. There was weak evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality, with no improvement in methodological quality of CKD cohort studies between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement.

Methodological quality of antimalarial randomized controlled trials during pregnancy and its impact on the risk of low birth weight

AIM

To describe biases in antimalarial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) during pregnancy and their influence on antimalarial drug efficacy to reduce the risk of low birth weight (LBW).

METHODS

RCT characteristics and results were retrieved from a previous systematic review on the efficacy of antimalarials. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment was used to investigate source of biases in each RCT. The quality of RCT reporting published after the introduction of the CONSORT statement in medical literature in 1996 were compared to those published before 1996. A meta-regression analysis was performed to examine the impact of bias on the efficacy of antimalarials to reduce LBW after controlling for the time period prior to 1996.

RESULTS

Twenty out of 25 RCTs (80%) had a high risk of bias. The proportion of RCTs having a low risk of bias was higher in manuscripts published after the introduction of CONSORT compared to those published before 1996 for sequence generation (P = 0.04) and allocation concealment (P = 0.04). Heterogeneity between RCTs was associated with an overestimation of the efficacy of antimalarial drugs in reducing LBW in RCTs with inadequate methods for randomization, allocation concealment or not being free of other bias.

CONCLUSION

Antimalarial RCTs during pregnancy are poorly reported but may be improved by using the CONSORT statement. After taking into account the time period before 1996, we found that biases had an impact on the efficacy of antimalarials to reduce the risk of LBW.

Impact evaluation of CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines on reporting quality for randomized controlled trials of acupuncture conducted in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the reports' qualities of acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China before and after the implementation of two guidelines, i.e., the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).

METHODS

Proportions of studies that reported CONSORT and STRICTA items were compared for the years before and after implementation of these two guidelines. In addition, the total score of each item's reporting were calculated and reported differences during different date ranges were compared.

RESULTS

For CONSORT items (maximum score 8), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (2.5±0.6) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (3.0±0.9; difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6, P<0.01). For STRICTA items (maximum score 17), there was evidence that a slight improvement in reporting between 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 combined (8.6±2.1) and 2004-2005 and 2009-2010 combined (10.1±1.8; difference 1.5, 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.9, P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Quality of reporting for RCTs of acupuncture treatment conducted in China have generally improved since the introduction of the STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.

Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered?

OBJECTIVE

Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are advocated to provide high-level medical evidence. However, in neurosurgery, there are barriers to conducting RCTs. The authors of this study sought to analyze the quality of neurosurgical RCTs since 2000 to determine the adequacy of their design and reporting.

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (2000-2014) was conducted. The medical subject heading (MeSH) terms used in the search included: "neurosurgery" OR "neurosurgical procedure," "brain neoplasms," "infarction" and "decompression," "carotid stenosis," "cerebral hemorrhage," and "spinal fusion." These studies were limited to RCTs, in humans, and in the English language. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of RCT design and reporting. The standardized median times cited (median citations divided by years since publication) were used to assess impact. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-based scale was used to assess the design of the studies as primarily pragmatic or explanatory.

RESULTS

Sixty-one articles were identified, and the following subspecialties were the most common: vascular (23, 37%), followed by functional neurosurgery and neurooncology (both 13, 21%). The following nations were the primary leaders in RCTs: US (25 studies, 41%), Germany (8 studies, 13%), and the United Kingdom (7 studies, 11%). Median sample size was 100 (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5-279). The majority of the studies (40, 66%) had pragmatic objectives. The median number of times cited overall was 69 (IQR 20.5-193). The combined median CONSORT score was 36 (IQR 27.5-39). Blinding was most deficiently reported. Other areas with a relatively low quality of reporting were sample size calculation (34.2% of surgical, 38.5% of drug, and 20% of device studies), allocation concealment (28.9% of surgical, 23.1% of drug, and 50% of device studies), and protocol implementation (18.4% of surgical, 23% of drug, and 20% of device studies). The quality of reporting did not correlate with the study impact. All studies had a median Jadad score ≤ 3. Thirty-three pragmatic studies (83%) and 5 explanatory studies (25%) met the design objectives. All pragmatic studies based on drug and device trials met their objectives, while 74% of pragmatic surgical trials met their objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of neurosurgical RCTs is low. The quality of RCT design and reporting in neurosurgery is also low. Many study designs are not compatible with stated objectives. Pragmatic studies were more likely to meet design objectives. Given the role of RCTs as one of the highest levels of evidence, it is critical to improve on their methodology and reporting.

Randomized controlled trials and neuro-oncology: should alternative designs be considered?

Deficiencies in design and reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) hinders interpretability and critical appraisal. The reporting quality of recent RCTs in neuro-oncology was analyzed to assess adequacy of design and reporting. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify non-surgical RCTs (years 2005-2014, inclusive). The CONSORT and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of design/reporting. Studies published in 2005-2010 were compared as a cohort against studies published in 2011-2014, in terms of general characteristics and reporting quality. A PRECIS-based scale was used to designate studies on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. Spearman's test was used to assess correlations. Regression analysis was used to assess associations. Overall 68 RCTs were identified. Studies were often chemotherapy-based (n = 41 studies) focusing upon high grade gliomas (46 %) and metastases (41 %) as the top pathologies. Multi-center trials (71 %) were frequent. The overall median CONSORT and Jadad scores were 34.5 (maximum 44) and 2 (maximum 5), respectively; these scores were similar in radiation and chemotherapy-based trials. Major areas of deficiency pertained to allocation concealment, implementation of methods, and blinding whereby less than 20 % of articles fulfilled all criteria. Description of intervention, random sequence generation, and the details regarding recruitment were also deficient; less than 50 % of studies fulfilled all criteria. Description of sample size calculations and blinding improved in later published cohorts. Journal impact factor was significantly associated with higher quality (p = 0.04). Large academic consortia, multi-center designs, ITT analysis, collaboration with biostatisticians, larger sample sizes, and studies with pragmatic objectives were more likely to achieve positive primary outcomes on univariate analysis; none of these variables were significant on multivariate analysis. Deficiencies in the quality of design/reporting of RCTs in neuro-oncology persist. Quality improvement is necessary. Consideration of alternative strategies should be considered.

Quality of reporting in infertility journals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether fertility and top gynecology journals indexed in PubMed require the use of reporting guidelines and to identify the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2013 that were written following CONSORT guidelines in the top four fertility journals (by their highest impact factor).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study evaluating instructions for authors and RCTs published in fertility journals.

SETTING

Academic institution.

PATIENT(S)

None.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Proportion of instruction-for-authors documents that suggested or required the use of reporting guidelines, and proportion of RCTs published in 2013 that accomplished the CONSORT checklist.

RESULT(S)

In 47% (16/34) of the journals one or more reporting guidelines were mentioned in the instructions for authors' documents. PRISMA and CONSORT were the most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines. None of the analyzed RCTs completed the 25 items of CONSORT guideline. Sequence generation or allocation concealment was not described in 69% of the studies. One-third of the journals did not publish a flowchart, 72% did not show relative and absolute size-effect measures, and 42% did not use measures of imprecision. In the summaries, 42% did not discuss the limitations of the study and 78% did not mention the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSION(S)

Less than half of the analyzed peer-reviewed journals request the authors to use reporting guidelines. Nevertheless, among the top fertility and gynecology journals, reporting guidelines are widely mentioned. Overall, accomplishment of CONSORT items was suboptimal. Editorial boards, reviewers, and authors should join efforts to improve the quality of reporting.

Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials--update and extension

BACKGROUND

Non-inferiority and equivalence trials require tailored methodology and therefore adequate conduct and reporting is an ambitious task. The aim of our review was to assess whether the criteria recommended by the CONSORT extension were followed.

METHODS

We searched the Medline database and the Cochrane Central Register for reports of randomised non-inferiority and equivalence trials published in English language. We excluded reports on bioequivalence studies, reports targeting on other than the main results of a trial, and articles of which the full-text version was not available. In total, we identified 209 reports (167 non-inferiority, 42 equivalence trials) and assessed the reporting and methodological quality using abstracted items of the CONSORT extension.

RESULTS

Half of the articles did not report on the method of randomisation and only a third of the trials were reported to use blinding. The non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined in most reports (94%), but was justified only for a quarter of the trials. Sample size calculation was reported for a proportion of 90%, but the margin was taken into account in only 78% of the trials reported. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis were presented in less than half of the reports. When reporting the results, a confidence interval was given for 85% trials. A proportion of 21% of the reports presented a conclusion that was wrong or incomprehensible. Overall, we found a substantial lack of quality in reporting and conduct. The need to improve also applied to aspects generally recommended for randomised trials. The quality was partly better in high-impact journals as compared to others.

CONCLUSIONS

There are still important deficiencies in the reporting on the methodological approach as well as on results and interpretation even in high-impact journals. It seems to take more than guidelines to improve conduct and reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence trials.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.

Quality of reporting of neonatal and infant trials in high-impact journals

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of the quality of reporting for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with infants and neonates that were published in high-impact journals and to identify RCT characteristics associated with quality of reporting.

METHODS

RCTs that enrolled infants younger than 12 months and were published in 2005-2009 in 6 pediatric or general medical journals were reviewed. Eligible RCTs were evaluated for the presence of 11 quality criteria selected from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. The relationships between quality of reporting and key study characteristics were tested with nonparametric statistics.

RESULTS

Two reviewers had very good agreement regarding the eligibility of studies (κ = 0.85) and the presence of quality criteria (κ = 0.82). Among 179 eligible RCTs, reporting of the individual quality criteria varied widely. Only 50% included a flow diagram, but 99% reported the number of study participants. Higher quality of reporting was associated with greater numbers of study participants, publication in a general medical journal, and greater numbers of centers (P < .0001 for each comparison). Geographic region and positive study outcomes were not associated with reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of infant and neonatal RCTs is inconsistent, particularly in pediatric journals. Therefore, readers cannot assess accurately the validity of many RCT results. Strict adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines should lead to improved reporting.

Randomized trials of dopamine agonists in restless legs syndrome: a systematic review, quality assessment, and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of dopamine agonists (DAs) for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) has been assessed in numerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and to synthesize the study results in terms of efficacy and tolerability to inform the clinical management of RLS.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched for English-language RCTs that assessed the effects of DAs in RLS. Quality of reporting was measured using the proportion of 17 CONSORT checklist items included in each study. The 2 primary outcomes were pooled mean change from baseline in International RLS (IRLS) Study Group rating scale score (Deltamu) (95% CI) and relative risk (RR) (95% CI) of response based on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale score. The pooled proportions of adverse events (PAEs) (95% CI) were also estimated.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs (N = 2848 patients) were included. Two of the 17 CONSORT checklist items were reported in 7 studies (39%) and 9 of the 17 items were reported in all 18 studies (100%). The differences in the IRLS scores and RR for CGI-I were significantly greater with pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine, and cabergoline compared with placebo. Results for heterogeneity were nonsignificant. The difference in Deltamu (95% CI) was significant with pramipexole (-6.63 [-9.15 to -4.10]) versus ropinirole (-3.64 [-4.76 to 2.51]) (P = 0.04). The difference between pramipexole and rotigotine was nonsignificant. The pooled PAEs (95% CI) for pramipexole, ropinirole, and rotigotine were 4.8% (2.0% to 8.7%), 10.2% (2.6% to 22.1%), and 7.6% (1.3% to 18.5%), respectively. In the trial of sumanirole, the PAE value was 2% (0% to 5.4%).

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings from the meta-analysis, DAs were significantly more efficacious in the treatment of RLS compared with placebo.