Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review

Cancer Prevention and Screening for People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH) live near-normal life expectancies due to advances in antiretroviral therapy. PLWH are experiencing more non-HIV-related comorbidities and deaths. PLWH are diagnosed with cancer more often and experience worse cancer-related outcomes than the general population. Cancer prevention and screening in PLWH is essential and leads to earlier diagnosis and treatment which may result in improved health outcomes and increased long-term survival. Few cancer screening guidelines specific to PLWH exist. There are often discrepancies in general population cancer screening guidelines. Familiarity with the utilization of cancer screening guidelines in this population is imperative.

More Than a Decade Since the Latest CONSORT Non-inferiority Trials Extension: Do Infectious Diseases Trials Do Enough?

More than a decade after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group released a reporting items checklist for non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, the infectious diseases literature continues to underreport these items. Trialists, journals, and peer reviewers should redouble their efforts to ensure infectious diseases studies meet these minimum reporting standards.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antiretroviral Therapies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the reporting quality of antiretroviral (ARV) noninferiority (NI) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has improved since the CONSORT guideline release in 2006. The primary objective of this systematic review was assessing the methodological and reporting quality of ARV NI-RCTs. We also assessed reporting quality by funding source and publication year.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central from inception to 14 November 2022. We included NI-RCTs comparing ≥2 ARV regimens used for human immunodeficiency virus treatment or prophylaxis. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool to assess risk of bias. Screening and data extraction were performed blinded and in duplicate. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data; statistical tests were 2 sided, with significance defined as P < .05. The systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42022328586), and not funded.

RESULTS

We included 160 articles reporting 171 trials. Of these articles, 101 (63.1%) did not justify the NI margin used, and 28 (17.5%) did not provide sufficient information for sample size calculation. Eighty-nine of 160 (55.6%) reported both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, while 118 (73.8%) described missing data handling. Ten of 171 trials (5.9%) reported potentially misleading results. Pharmaceutical industry-funded trials were more likely to be double-blinded (28.1% vs 10.3%; P = .03) and to describe missing data handling (78.5% vs 59.0%; P = .02). The overall risk of bias was low in 96 of 160 studies (60.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

ARV NI-RCTs should improve NI margin justification, reporting of intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and missing data handling to increase CONSORT adherence.

Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Among interventional studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence. However, RCTs can be susceptible to the risk of bias (RoB). Systematic reviews can be performed to appraise RoB in the included articles using evaluative tools. This study aimed to describe the main characteristics and focus on the RoB of RCTs conducted in Iran and included in Cochrane Reviews (CRs).

METHODS

We searched "Iran" by selecting the "Search All Text" and "Review" fields in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within Ovid. CRs that included the RCTs conducted in Iran were retrieved. A trial was selected only if it was included in CRs, described as a controlled clinical trial, involved human subjects and CR authors assessed its RoB. The trials were characterized by investigating the relevant articles and the table "Characteristics of included studies" in each CR. The RoB was investigated by collecting the review authors' judgments based on RoB assessment tables in the CRs.

RESULTS

Out of 1166 Iranian RCTs included by 571 CRs, low RoB was found in 44.9% for random sequence generation, 20.8% for allocation concealment, 32.3% for blinding of participants/personnel, 36.5% for blinding of outcome assessors, 56.3% for incomplete outcome data, 41.3% for selective outcome reporting and 53.8% for other sources of bias.

CONCLUSION

The RoB in Iranian RCTs was found to be mostly high or unclear. While this is similar to the global situation, it is recommended that the methodological quality of conducting and reporting RCTs be addressed in Iran.