Outcome reporting recommendations for clinical trial protocols and reports: a scoping review

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.

Role of vitamin D supplementation in modifying outcomes after surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence to suggest vitamin D plays a role in immune and vascular function; hence, it may be of biological and clinical relevance for patients undergoing major surgery. With a greater number of randomised studies being conducted evaluating the impact of vitamin D supplementation on surgical patients, it is an opportune time to conduct further analysis of the impact of vitamin D on surgical outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Trials Register were interrogated up to December 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation in surgery. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted for all studies. The primary outcome assessed was overall postoperative survival.

RESULTS

We screened 4883 unique studies, assessed 236 full-text articles and included 14 articles in the qualitative synthesis, comprising 1982 patients. The included studies were highly heterogeneous with respect to patient conditions, ranging from open heart surgery to cancer operations to orthopaedic conditions, and also with respect to the timing and equivalent daily dose of vitamin D supplementation (range: 0.5-7500 mcg; 20-300 000 IU). No studies reported significant differences in overall survival or postoperative mortality with vitamin D supplementation. There was also no clear evidence of benefit with respect to overall or intensive care unit length of stay.

DISCUSSION

Numerous studies have reported the benefits of vitamin D supplementation in different surgical settings without any consistency. However, this systematic review found no clear evidence of benefit, which warrants the supposition that a single biological effect of vitamin D supplementation does not exist. The observed improvement in outcomes in low vitamin D groups has not been convincingly proven beyond chance findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021232067.

Exploring the perspectives of selectors and collecters of trial outcome data: an international qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Selecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made.

METHODS

One-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations.

RESULTS

We identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates.

DISCUSSION

People involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Do clinical trials prepare to fail by failing to prepare? An examination of MS trials and recommendations for patient-reported outcome measure selection

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials use patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, which can influence treatment decision-making, drug approval and label claims. Given that many PRO measure options exist, and there are conceptual and contextual complexities with PRO measurement, we aimed to evaluate how and why specific PRO measures have been selected for pivotal multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials. Specifically, we aimed to identify the reasons documented for PRO measure selection in contemporary phase III MS disease-modifying treatment (DMT) clinical trials.

METHODS

We searched for phase III clinical trials of MS DMTs published between 2015 and 2021 and evaluated trial protocols, or primary publications where available, for PRO measure selection information. Specifically, we examined study documents for their clarification of clinical concepts measured, definitions of concepts measured, explanations of which PRO measures were considered, why specific PRO measures were chosen, and trade-offs in PRO measure selection.

RESULTS

We identified 1705 abstracts containing 61 unique phase III MS DMT clinical trials. We obtained and examined 27/61 trial protocols. Six protocols were excluded: four contained no mention of PRO measures and two contained redacted sections preventing adequate assessment, leaving 21 protocols for assessment. For the remaining 34 trials (61-27), we retrieved 31 primary publications; 15 primary publications mentioned the use of a PRO measure. None of the 36 clinical trials that mentioned the use of PRO measures (21 protocols and 15 primary publications) documented clear PRO or clinical outcome assessment (COA) measurement strategies, provided clear justifications for PRO selection, or reasons why specific PRO measures were selected when alternatives existed.

CONCLUSION

PRO measure selection for clinical trials is not evidence-based or underpinned by structured systematic approaches. This represents a critical area for study design improvement as PRO measure results directly affect patient care, PRO measurement has conceptual and contextual complexities, and there is a wide range of options when selecting a PRO measure. We recommend trial designers use formal approaches for PRO measure selection to ensure PRO measurement-based decisions are optimised. We provide a simple, logical, five-stage approach for PRO measure selection in clinical trials.

Definitions, acceptability, limitations, and guidance in the use and reporting of surrogate end points in trials: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current literature on the use of surrogate end points, including definitions, acceptability, and limitations of surrogate end points and guidance for their design/reporting, into trial reporting items.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Literature was identified through searching bibliographic databases (until March 1, 2022) and gray literature sources (until May 27, 2022). Data were thematically analyzed into four categories: (1) definitions, (2) acceptability, (3) limitations and challenges, and (4) guidance, and synthesized into reporting guidance items.

RESULTS

After screening, 90 documents were included: 79% (n = 71) had data on definitions, 77% (n = 69) on acceptability, 72% (n = 65) on limitations and challenges, and 61% (n = 55) on guidance. Data were synthesized into 17 potential trial reporting items: explicit statements on the use of surrogate end point(s) and justification for their use (items 1-6); methodological considerations, including whether sample size calculations were informed by surrogate validity (items 7-9); reporting of results for composite outcomes containing a surrogate end point (item 10); discussion and interpretation of findings (items 11-14); plans for confirmatory studies, collecting data on the surrogate end point and target outcome, and data sharing (items 15-16); and informing trial participants about using surrogate end points (item 17).

CONCLUSION

The review identified and synthesized items on the use of surrogate end points in trials; these will inform the development of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-SURROGATE and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-SURROGATE extensions.

Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources.

METHODS

This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%).

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

Evaluating the completeness of the reporting of abstracts since the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts: an evaluation of randomized controlled trial in ten nursing journals

BACKGROUND

As a practice-oriented discipline, strict adherence to reporting guidelines is particularly important in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts of the nursing area. However, whether abstract reports after 2010 have complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guideline is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether the publication of CONSORT-A has improved abstract reporting in nursing and explores the factors associated with better adherence to the guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science for 200 RCTs randomly selected from ten nursing journals. We used a data extraction form based on CONSORT-A, including 16 items, to analyze the reporting adherence to the guidelines, and the reporting rate of each item and the total score for each abstract were used to indicate adherence and overall quality score (OQS, range 0-16). A comparison of the total mean score between the two periods was made, and affecting factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the studies we included, 48 abstracts were published pre-CONSORT-A whereas 152 post-CONSORT-A. The overall mean score for reporting adherence to 16 items was 7.41 ± 2.78 and 9.16 ± 2.76 for pre- and post-CONSORT-A, respectively (total score: 16). The most poorly reported items are "harms (0%)," "outcomes in method (8.5%)," "randomization (25%)," and "blinding (6.5%)." Items including the year of publication, impact factor, multiple center trial, word count, and structured abstract are significantly associated with higher adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence to abstract reporting in nursing literature has improved since the CONSORT-A era, but the overall completeness of RCT abstracts remained low. A joint effort by authors, editors, and journals is necessary to improve reporting quality of RCT abstracts.

Selective outcome reporting in paediatric dentistry restorative treatment randomised clinical trials-A meta-research

BACKGROUND

Selective outcome reporting (SOR) is a bias that occurs when the primary outcome of a randomised clinical trial (RCT) is omitted or changed.

AIM

To evaluate the prevalence of SOR in RCTs on restorative treatment in primary teeth.

DESIGN

We conducted an electronic search on ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization platform (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 1^st of April 2021, with no registry time or language restrictions. We included RCT protocols that evaluated restorative treatments in primary teeth and excluded trials that did not have a complete publication in a scientific journal. The chi-squared test was used to identify the association between SOR and variables as a discrepancy in the follow-up period, the timing of registration, the type of sponsorship and the type of study design (α = 5%).

RESULTS

Of the 294 identified protocols, 30 were included in the study. 83.3% of trials were registered retrospectively. SOR was observed in 53.3% (n = 16) of the published trials and was significantly associated with a discrepancy in the follow-up period (p = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of SOR in RCTs on restorative treatment proves that this is a prominent threat. A proper preregistered protocol, declaration of any protocol deviation and allowance of stakeholders to compare the protocol with that of the submitted papers will achieve transparency.

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.

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.

Current state of research on acupuncture for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A scoping review

Objective

To provide an overview of the range and characteristics of existing evidence, research gaps, and future research priorities in treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) with acupuncture.

Method

Clinical studies on acupuncture treatment for ALS were searched in 9 databases and two websites. Two independent researchers screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; extracted the demographic data, interventions, and significant findings of the studies; and comprehensively analyzed the characteristics and limitations of the included articles.

Results

A total of 2,326 studies were retrieved, of which 92 were included. Most of the studies were conducted in China, with the number increasing over time. Study designs included case reports, case series, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and before-and-after studies, among which case reports were the most frequently used. A total of 1,388 patients were enrolled, of whom 1,031 had ALS, 274 had progressive bulbar palsy (PBP), 60 had progressive muscle atrophy (PMA), and 23 had primary lateral sclerosis (PLS). Acupuncture interventions included body acupuncture, electroacupuncture, acupoint injection, scalp acupuncture, acupoint massage, Sa-am acupuncture, needle-embedding therapy, auricular acupuncture, venom pharmacopuncture therapy, plum blossom needling, acupoint paste, electroacupuncture, and needle warming through moxibustion. The most frequently used acupoints were ST36, LI4, SP6, and LI11. Acupuncture is often applied in combination with other treatments, such as herbal or Western medicine. The frequency of treatment ranged from once a month to three times a day, and the duration of treatment ranged from 5 days to 3 years. Clinical symptoms, muscle strength, and effective rates were the most frequently used outcomes. Most studies reported significant efficacy, and only a few studies reported adverse events explicitly.

Conclusion

Evidence gaps include poor study design, complex interventions, limited significance of the selected outcomes, and limited study reporting. The promotion of acupuncture treatment for ALS still faces several obstacles. Rigorous study design and conduct, standardized intervention and outcome measurements, and normative reporting are needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture treatment for ALS.

Scoping and targeted reviews to support development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: protocol

INTRODUCTION

Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a primary patient-relevant outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently, that is, with shorter time, smaller sample size and lower cost. However, there is currently no consensus-driven guideline for the reporting of RCTs using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the design and reporting of these trials. As an initial step, scoping and targeted reviews will identify potential items for inclusion in the extensions and participants to contribute to a Delphi consensus process.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review will search and include literature reporting on the current understanding, limitations and guidance on using surrogate endpoints in trials. Relevant literature will be identified through: (1) bibliographic databases; (2) grey literature; (3) handsearching of reference lists and (4) solicitation from experts. Data from eligible records will be thematically analysed into potential items for inclusion in extensions. The targeted review will search for RCT reports and protocols published from 2017 to 2021 in six high impact general medical journals. Trial corresponding author contacts will be listed as potential participants for the Delphi exercise.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. The reviews will support the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for reporting surrogate primary endpoints (surrogate endpoint as the primary outcome). The findings will be published in open-access publications.This review has been prospectively registered in the OSF Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WP3QH.

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline.

METHODS

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process.

DISCUSSION

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.

Exercise-based rehabilitation reduces reinjury following acute lateral ankle sprain: A systematic review update with meta-analysis

Research questions

1) Do exercise-based rehabilitation programs reduce re-injury following acute ankle sprain?; 2) Is rehabilitation effectiveness moderated by the exercise’s therapeutic quality, content and volume?

Methods

This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020210858) included randomized controlled trials in which adults who sustained an acute ankle sprain received exercise-based rehabilitation as an intervention. Databases CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles (last search: March 2021). ROB II screening tool by Cochrane was used to assess risk of bias and the i-CONTENT tool was used to assess quality of interventions. Both qualitative analysis and quantitative data synthesis were performed.

Results

Fourteen randomized controlled trials comprising 2182 participants were included. Five studies were judged overall low risk of bias and i-CONTENT assessment showed poor to moderate therapeutic quality of exercise across all included articles. Pooled data found significant reductions in re-injury prevalence at 12 months, in favour of the exercise-based rehabilitation group vs usual care (OR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.36 to 0.99). Pooled data for re-injury incidence showed not-significant results (MD: 0.027; 95%CI: -2.14 to 2.19). Meta-regression displayed no statistically significant association between training volume and odds of re-injury (r = -0.00086; SD: 0.00057; 95%CI: -0.00197 to 0.00025). Results from patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes were inconclusive at 1 month, 3–6 months and 7–12 months of follow up.

Conclusion

Exercise-based rehabilitation reduces the risk of recurrent ankle sprain compared to usual care, but there is insufficient data to determine the optimal content of exercise-based interventions. Training volume varied considerably across studies but did not affect the odds of sustaining a re-injury. Effects on patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes are equivocal. Future research should compare different exercise contents, training volumes and intensities after ankle sprain.

Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials.

METHOD

Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis.

RESULTS

Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

Evaluation of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs.

RESULTS

53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Although many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.

High incidence of outcome switching observed in follow-up publications of randomized controlled trials: Meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of outcome switching in follow-up publications of randomized controlled trials. Outcome switching leads to bias where treatment benefits are more likely to be overestimated or based on chance.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Meta-research study including all follow-up publications 2014-2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal. Two independent reviewers compared the primary outcomes of follow-up publications with the original RCT publication and the trial protocol.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight follow-up publications were identified. Thirty-one (40%) used different primary outcomes in the follow-up publication compared with the original RCT. In seventeen (55%) of these the outcome switch was neither pre-specified nor explained in the journal publication. The incidence of outcome switching in follow-up studies rose to 70% when preceded by outcome switching in the corresponding initial RCT (P< 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, outcome switching occurred in 40% of follow-up publications of previously published RCTs. The majority is neither pre-specified nor explained.

Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.

METHODS

RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.