Worldwide trends in volume and quality of published protocols of randomized controlled trials

Preferred Methods of Measuring Work Participation: An International Survey Among Trialists and Cochrane Systematic Reviewers

Purpose Heterogeneity in work participation (WP) outcomes measurements hampers large scale evidence synthesis in systematic reviews of trials. In this survey we explore authors' reasons for choosing specific WP outcomes and their measurement methods, including employment status, absence from work, at-work productivity loss, and employability. Methods We contacted authors of 260 trials and 69 systematic reviews and asked closed and open-ended questions about previously used WP outcomes and measurement methods as well as their opinion on the best way to measure WP. Results In total, 91 authors from a wide range of professional backgrounds completed the survey. The majority of authors (86%) chose WP outcomes based on their use in previous similar studies. In most studies (88%), patients had not been involved in the process of selecting the WP outcome. Authors judged feasibility to be an important factor for choosing a measurement instrument (67%). Additionally, valid measurement tools should be available, easy to administer and not too time consuming. Although authors preferred registry data for long term follow-up, the availability and validity of registries was seen as a barrier. Most of the reviewers (72%) struggled to pool data because of variation in follow-up times and cut off points and varying definitions of work outcomes. Almost all (92%) respondents support the use of a Core Outcome Set for Work. Conclusions There is strong support from authors of trials and systematic reviews to develop a core outcome set on work participation outcomes for the evaluation of interventions.

Impact of advanced practice nurses in hospital units on compliance with clinical practice guidelines: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Incorporating the best available evidence into clinical practice is a determining challenge for healthcare professionals and organisations. The role of advanced practice nurses is viewed as a facilitator to adapt guideline recommendations to suit specific contexts and to overcome barriers to implementation. In this study, we evaluate the impact of advanced practice nurses on clinical indicators of hospitalised patients and on adherence to recommendations derived from two clinical practice guidelines (pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and vascular access device management).

METHODS

Quasi-experimental study in five intervention (IU) and five control (CU) hospital units at three hospitals in Spain (period 2018-19). Five advanced practice nurses were incorporated into IU, with the intention that would produce attitudinal changes and enhance the skills and knowledge of the nursing team regarding 18 clinical practice recommendations. In this study, 41 indicators were evaluated through direct observation of all patients admitted, at monthly intervals for 1 year. Outcomes were assessed by means of a descriptive, multi-line regression and association analysis.

RESULTS

The study population was composed of 3742 inpatients admitted for pressure ulcer assessment and 2631 fitted with vascular access devices. By the end of the study period, all variables had improved in the IU, where average compliance with recommendations was statistically significantly higher (pressure ulcer guidance 7.9 ± 1.9 vs 6.0 ± 1.7. OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.67-2.05; vascular access devices guidance 5.4 ± 1.4 vs 4.4 ± 1,6. OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95-1.17). The prevalence of pressure lesions and catheter-related adverse events decreased statistically significantly in the IU compared to the CU. The prevalence of pressure ulcers decreases (5.7% in IU vs 8.7% in CU p < 0.005) as well as the prevalence of adverse events related to the catheter (14% In IU vs 21.6% in CU p < 0.005). The unnecessary catheters decressed in IU 10.9% VS CU 15.8% (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of an advanced practice nurse statistically significantly improves clinical indicators related to the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers and to the management of vascular access devices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN18259923 retrospectively registered on 11/02/2022.

Examining the Development of Information Needs Assessment Questionnaires in Oncology: Protocol for a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Information needs are one of the most prevalent unmet supportive care needs of those living with cancer, including patients and their informal caregivers. Understanding how existing questionnaires for evaluating information needs have been developed is important for guiding appropriate use and informing future research. A literature review examining how information needs assessment questionnaires for use in the cancer context have been developed, with a specific focus on how questionnaire items have been identified, does not exist.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review will examine how questionnaires for assessing the information needs of those living with cancer have been developed with special focus on how patients, informal caregivers, and health care professionals have been involved in the selection and identification of questionnaire items.

METHODS

This review will include published studies describing the development and validation of information needs assessment questionnaires for use in the oncology context. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PsycInfo will be searched. Articles published at any point up to the date of the search will be eligible for inclusion. One person will screen titles and abstracts, and 2 people will screen and extract data from full-text articles.

RESULTS

Results are expected to be available in early 2023. Summary tables and a narrative summary will be used to describe results.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review will assist in identifying appropriate information needs assessment tools to incorporate into clinical and research contexts in oncology. It will also identify if additional information needs assessment tools are needed.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/35639.

Reporting quality of clinical trial protocols: a repeated cross-sectional study about the Adherence to SPIrit Recommendations in Switzerland, CAnada and GErmany (ASPIRE-SCAGE)

OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist.

DESIGN

Repeated cross sectional study.

SETTING

Swiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs).

PARTICIPANTS

RCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reported RESULTS: The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%-79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%-82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%-72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%-83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%-80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve.

Using numerical modeling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample

In order to propose a more precise definition and explore how to reduce ethical losses in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), we set out to identify trial participants who do not contribute to demonstrating that the treatment in the experimental arm is superior to that in the control arm. RCTs emerged mid-last century as the gold standard for assessing efficacy, becoming the cornerstone of the value of new therapies, yet their ethical grounds are a matter of debate. We introduce the concept of unnecessary participants in RCTs, the sum of non-informative participants and non-responders. The non-informative participants are considered not informative with respect to the efficacy measured in the trial in contrast to responders who carry all the information required to conclude on the treatment's efficacy. The non-responders present the event whether or not they are treated with the experimental treatment. The unnecessary participants carry the burden of having to participate in a clinical trial without benefiting from it, which might include experiencing side effects. Thus, these unnecessary participants carry the ethical loss that is inherent to the RCT methodology. On the contrary, responders to the experimental treatment bear its entire efficacy in the RCT. Starting from the proportions observed in a real placebo-controlled trial from the literature, we carried out simulations of RCTs progressively increasing the proportion of responders up to 100%. We show that the number of unnecessary participants decreases steadily until the RCT's ethical loss reaches a minimum. In parallel, the trial sample size decreases (presumably its cost as well), although the trial's statistical power increases as shown by the increase of the chi-square comparing the event rates between the two arms. Thus, we expect that increasing the proportion of responders in RCTs would contribute to making them more ethically acceptable, with less false negative outcomes.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

AIM

To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of '1' was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of '0' was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of '0.5' was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, 'Not Applicable (NA)' was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into 'Low' (0-58.4%), 'Moderate' (58.5-72.8%) and 'High' (72.9-100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi-square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance.

RESULTS

Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as 'High', 'Moderate' and 'Low' quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored 'NA' in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of 'High'-quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The 'High'-quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more 'High' scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of 'High' scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non-Endodontic specialty) or year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high-quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines.

Articles provided insufficient information to conduct an appropriate retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of medicine trials with the PRECIS-2 tool

PURPOSE

To assess whether, in the retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs), the nine PRECIS-2 domain scores using the information provided in articles were modified after using the information reported in other publicly available sources.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of participant-level pRCTs published in July 2018 to December 2019 in the four highest-impact general medicine journals. The articles described the main results of pRCTs assessing medicines in one or more arms that were not in the pre-licensing phases. The information reported in trial full protocols, published protocols, and other publications, registries, and trial websites were assessed and scored, and compared with that previously obtained after reviewing the information reported in the articles.

RESULTS

Out of 76 articles on pRCTs, 13 (17%) were included in the analysis. All were two-arm trials, assessing medicines only (n = 7), medicine vs device (n = 2), medicine vs surgery (n = 1), or medicine vs placebo (n = 3). Seven were open-label trials, and six had any type of masking. All except one had the full protocol available and/or published protocol; seven had other types of publication available. The assessment of the nine PRECIS-2 domains with the information reported in the 13 articles was changed in all trials after using the information included in other additional available sources. Between one (n = 1 article) and six (n = 2) domains were modified in each pRCT. The domains that most commonly changed were "organization" (n = 12), "recruitment" (n = 11), and "follow-up" (n = 8). "Primary outcome" and "primary analysis" were not modified in any trial. Eight percent of all domains could not be assessed due to inadequate or lack of information in seven articles; those were "recruitment" (n = 3), "organization" (n = 3), "setting" (n = 2), and "flexibility:adherence" (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Articles describing the trial main results are usually insufficient for the appropriate retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of a pRCT by authors not involved in the conduct of the trial. To address this issue, editors should require the submission of the original full protocol and final full protocol with the history of amendments to be published as supplementary material to the article.

E-SCOPE: A Strategic Approach to Identify and Accelerate Implementation of Evidence-based Best Practices

More than 50,000 randomized controlled trials and 8000 systematic reviews are anticipated to be published annually in the coming years. This huge volume of published findings makes it challenging for health care delivery systems to review new evidence, prioritize health care practices that warrant implementation, and implement best practices.

Behavioral trials in the Arab Gulf States: A scoping review

The leading chronic conditions in Arab Gulf States are modifiable by lifestyle change. Available evidence suggests a paucity of experimental studies on these conditions. We aimed to review the published randomized controlled trials on behavioral modification in the Arab Gulf States. Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for related keywords, and the records were screened for eligible studies; data were abstracted on trial characteristics (e.g. publication year, study population, primary outcome, intervention, control, follow-up, and outcome results), and a quality assessment of the trials was made. A total of 16 trials were eligible; 50% did not provide sample size calculation, and 31% did not designate a primary outcome. A majority of the trials did not explain randomization or allocation concealment (50%), did not blind outcome assessors (69%) or adopt an intention-to-treat analysis (56%); and 82% of trials found a significant intervention effect. More behavioral trials should be conducted overall and specifically for conditions for which there are no trials (e.g. respiratory tract infection and road injury).

Correction: Worldwide trends in volume and quality of published protocols of randomized controlled trials

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173042.].

Publication trends of study protocols in rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

Growing evidence points for the need to publish study protocols in the health field. The aim of this paper was to observe whether the growing interest in publishing study protocols in the broader health field has been translated into increased publications of rehabilitation study protocols.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed was searched with appropriate combinations of Medical Subject Headings up to December 2014. The effective presence of study protocols was manually screened. Regression models analyzed the yearly growth of publications. Two-sample Z-tests analyzed whether the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among study protocols differed from that of the same designs for the broader rehabilitation research.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Up to December 2014, 746 publications of rehabilitation study protocols were identified, with an exponential growth since 2005 (r2=0.981; P<0.001). RCT protocols were the most common among rehabilitation study protocols (83%), while RCTs were significantly more prevalent among study protocols than among the broader rehabilitation research (83% vs. 35.8%; P<0.001). For SRs, the picture was reversed: significantly less common among study protocols (2.8% vs. 9.3%; P<0.001). Funding was more often reported by rehabilitation study protocols than the broader rehabilitation research (90% vs. 53.1%; P<0.001). Rehabilitation journals published a significantly lower share of rehabilitation study protocols than they did for the broader rehabilitation research (1.8% vs.16.7%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the reasons for these discrepancies and reverting unwarranted disparities (e.g. low rate of publication for rehabilitation SR protocols) are likely new avenues for rehabilitation research and its publication. SRs, particularly those aggregating RCT results, are considered the best standard of evidence to guide rehabilitation clinical practice; however, that standard can be improved in rigor and/or transparency if the publications of rehabilitation SRs protocols become more common.