Quality of pilot trial abstracts in heart failure is suboptimal: a systematic survey

Quality and completeness of, and spin in reporting of, pilot and feasibility studies in hip and knee arthroplasty: a protocol for a methodological survey

INTRODUCTION

Pilot or feasibility trials examine the feasibility, viability and recruitment potential of larger, main trials. Specifically, a pilot trial can be instrumental in identifying methodological issues essential to the development of an effective research protocol. However, numerous studies published as pilot or feasibility studies have demonstrated notable inconsistencies in the nature of information reported, resulting in poor-quality and incomplete reporting. It is unclear whether such low quality or incompleteness of reporting is also prevalent in arthroplasty pilot trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol outlines a methodological survey examining the completeness of reporting among hip and knee arthroplasty pilot trials in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 extension to pilot trials. Secondary objectives include: (1) determining the prevalence of 'spin' practices, defined as: (a) placing a focus on statistical significance rather than feasibility, (b) presenting results that show the trial to be non-feasible as feasible or (c) emphasising the effectiveness or potential intervention benefits rather than feasibility; (2) determining factors associated with incomplete reporting, and 'spin'. A search of PubMed will be conducted for pilot trials in hip or knee arthroplasty published between 01 January 2017 and 31 December 2023. Following screening, appropriate data will be extracted from eligible publications and reported as descriptive statistics, encompassing elements of the CONSORT checklist associated with completeness of reporting. Logistic regression analysis and Poisson regression will be used to analyse factors associated with completeness of reporting and spin.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This methodological review does not require formal ethical approval, as it will solely involve the use of published and publicly reported literature. The results of this study will be disseminated through submission to peer-reviewed journals and academic conference presentations. Study details will be sent to McMaster University's media coordinators to be shared through the institution's research-focused platforms.

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.

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.

The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study

Introduction

Pilot and feasibility trials are conducted to determine feasibility or to collect information that would inform the design of a larger definitive trial. Clear progression criteria are required to determine if a definitive or main trial is feasible and how it should be designed. We sought to determine how often progression criteria are reported and the associated factors.

Methods

We conducted a methodological review of protocols for pilot randomised trials published in three journals that publish research protocols (BMJ Open, Trials, Pilot and Feasibility Studies), using a PubMed search (2013–2017). We extracted bibliometric information including the country in which the study was conducted, source of funding, type of intervention, use of a primary feasibility outcome, sample size reporting, and justification. We used generalised linear models to determine the factors associated with reporting progression criteria.

Results

Our search retrieved 276 articles, of which 49 were not eligible. We included 227 articles. Overall, 45/227 (19.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.8–25.6) reported progression criteria. Protocols published in more recent years were significantly associated with higher odds of reporting progression criteria (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.40; 95% CI 1.03–1.92; p = 0.034). Pilot trials from Europe (aOR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08–0.48; p < 0.001) and the rest of the world (aOR 0.05; 95% CI 0.01–0.18; p < 0.003) compared to North America were significantly associated with lower odds of reporting progression criteria. Journal, source of funding, sample size, intervention type, and having a primary outcome related to feasibility were not significantly associated with reporting progression criteria.

Conclusion

Progression criteria are not often explicitly stated in protocols of pilot trials leaving room for varied interpretation of findings. The development of formal guidance for progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials is warranted.