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

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.

The reporting quality and spin of randomized controlled trials of endometriosis pain: Methodological study based on CONSORT extension on abstracts

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts regarding patients with endometriosis pelvic pain and investigate the prevalence and characteristics of spin in these abstracts.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for RCT abstracts addressing endometriosis pelvic pain published from January 1st, 2010 to December 1st, 2023.The reporting quality of RCT abstracts was assessed using the CONSORT statement for abstracts. Additionally, spin was evaluated in the results and conclusions section of the abstracts, defined as the misleading reporting of study findings to emphasize the perceived benefits of an intervention or to confound readers from statistically non-significant results. Assessing factors affecting the reporting quality and spin existence, linear and logistic regression was used, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 47 RCT abstracts were included. Out of 16 checklist items, only three items including objective, intervention and conclusions were sufficiently reported in the most abstracts (more than 95%), and none of the abstracts presented precise data as required by the CONSORT-A guidelines. In the reporting quality of material and method section, trial design, type of randomization, the generation of random allocation sequences, the allocation concealment and blinding were most items identified that were suboptimal. The total score for the quality varied between 5 and 15 (mean: 9.59, SD: 3.03, median: 9, IQR: 5). Word count (beta = 0.015, p-value = 0.005) and publishing in open-accessed journals (beta = 2.023, p-value = 0.023) were the significant factors that affecting the reporting quality. Evaluating spin within each included paper, we found that 18 (51.43%) papers had statistically non-significant results. From these studies, 12 (66.66%) had spin in both results and conclusion sections. Furthermore, the spin intensity increased during 2010-2023 and 38.29% of abstracts had spin in both results and conclusion sections.

CONCLUSION

Overall poor adherence to CONSORT-A was observed, with spin detected in several RCTs featuring non-significant primary endpoints in obstetrics and gynecology literature.

Quality reporting of randomized controlled trials on SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure: a comprehensive assessment

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide clinicians with the best evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention, and complete and transparent trial reports help to critically assess and use trial results. The objective of our study was to assess the quality of reporting in RCTs of sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure (HF) and identify factors associated with improved reporting quality. Two researchers conducted a comprehensive search in four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane). The quality of each report was assessed using a 25-point Overall Quality Score (OQS) based on the guidelines provided in the 2010 Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement. We included a total of 58 relevant RCTs. The median OQS in the 2010 CONSORT statement was 15 (range 7.5-24). The missing items were primarily found in the 'Methods' and 'Results' sections of the 2010 CONSORT statement. Multivariate regression modeling revealed that a more recent publication year, high impact factor, and large sample size were significant predictors of OQS improvement. The findings suggest that the overall quality of reported RCTs of SGLT2 inhibitors in HF is unsatisfactory, which reduces their potential usefulness.

Harnack H, Huang L, Sikorski C, Mbuagbaw L, de Souza RJ. Assessment of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of inulin-type fructans supplementation on cardiovascular disease risk factors: A systematic survey

BACKGROUND

Transparent and detailed reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential to judge its validity and generalizability. We assessed the reporting quality of RCTs examining the effects of inulin-type fructans supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors, before and after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in 2010.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Emcare, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from inception to May 15, 2022, including the reference lists of selected RCTs. We screened titles and abstracts and extracted the data independently and in duplicate. We included RCTs that investigated the effects of inulin-type fructans on cardiovascular disease risk factors (e.g., low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood glucose) in adults (18 years or older). The primary outcomes of this study were: the overall reporting quality of RCTs (defined as the total number of items [0 to 36] present from the CONSORT checklist) published before and after CONSORT; and the study characteristics (e.g., sample size, significance of primary outcome) predictive of the CONSORT score. The secondary outcome was the reporting of each specific item of the CONSORT checklist during pre- and post-CONSORT periods. The mean difference in the total number of reported items in studies published before and after CONSORT were compared using a t-test and Poisson regression to explore the factors associated with overall reporting quality of RCTs. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the adherence to each of the 36 items during pre- and post-CONSORT periods.

RESULTS

We identified 1,767 citations from our systematic search, of which 55 were eligible. There was a significant increase in the reporting of CONSORT items (mean difference 8.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.24 to 11.71) between studies published before and after publication of CONSORT. The sole variable that was predictive of better reporting quality of RCTs was whether the study was published before or after CONSORT (incidence rate ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.02). Completeness of reporting of RCTs only improved in 15 out of 36 items (41.6%) after the publication of CONSORT.

CONCLUSION

The completeness of reporting in RCTs investigating inulin-type fructans supplementation on cardiovascular disease risk factors remains inadequate after the publication of CONSORT. Greater adherence to CONSORT by authors and enforcement of CONSORT by journals may improve the quality of reporting among RCTs.

Poor reporting quality of randomized controlled trials comparing treatments of COVID-19-A retrospective cross-sectional study on the first year of publications

INTRODUCTION

Transparent and complete reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential for critical scientific appraisal of the results. It has been argued whether publications during the COVID-19 pandemic have met reporting standards. In this study, we assessed reporting adherence of RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients to the CONSORT checklist and discuss which lessons can be learned to improve reporting in the future.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study performed at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany. We conducted a pragmatic systematic literature search in the PubMed database to identify RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients in the first year of publications on the topic (March 2020-February 2021). We investigated the adherence of each publication to the CONSORT checklist and assessed the association between specific predictors and percentage adherence in an exploratory multivariable regression model.

RESULTS

We analyzed 127 RCTs and found that the median percentage adherence to the CONSORT checklist was 54.3% [IQR 38.9 to 65.7]. In the exploratory multivariable regression model, the impact factor (highest tertile of impact factor compared to lowest tertile ß = 21.77, 95% CI 13.89 to 29.66, p<0.001; middle tertile compared lowest tertile ß = 11.79, 95% CI 5.74 to 17.84, p<0.001)) and authors' referral to the CONSORT statement (ß = 9.29, 95% CI 2.98 to 15.60, p = 0.004) were associated with a higher percentage adherence to the CONSORT checklist.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients during the first year of publications was poor. Measures to improve reporting quality are urgently needed.

Methodology reporting improved over time in 176,469 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To describe randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology reporting over time.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a deep learning-based sentence classification model based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, considered minimum requirements for reporting RCTs. We included 176,469 RCT reports published between 1966 and 2018. We analyzed the reporting trends over 5-year time periods, grouping trials from 1966 to 1990 in a single stratum. We also explored the effect of journal impact factor (JIF) and medical discipline.

RESULTS

Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) items were commonly reported during each period, and reporting increased over time (e.g., interventions: 79.1% during 1966-1990 to 87.5% during 2010-2018). Reporting of some methods information has increased, although there is room for improvement (e.g., sequence generation: 10.8-41.8%). Some items are reported infrequently (e.g., allocation concealment: 5.1-19.3%). The number of items reported and JIF are weakly correlated (Pearson's r (162,702) = 0.16, P < 0.001). The differences in the proportion of items reported between disciplines are small (<10%).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis provides large-scale quantitative support for the hypothesis that RCT methodology reporting has improved over time. Extending these models to all CONSORT items could facilitate compliance checking during manuscript authoring and peer review, and support metaresearch.

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.

Reporting quality was suboptimal in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptive designs

OBJECTIVE

The study was conducted to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that use an adaptive design (AD) based on the 2020 AD Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials 2010 extension (ACE) guidelines and identify factors associated with better reporting quality.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched until November 1, 2022. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to investigate potential predictors.

RESULTS

In total, 109 RCTs were included in our study. The mean compliance rate for the ACE checklist items was 69.75% ± 16.02. Key methodological items including allocation concealment and its implementations were poorly reported. There was also suboptimal reporting of checklist items related to the conduct of interim analyzes. Multivariable regression analysis showed better reporting quality with trial registration, nonindustry affiliation (first author), a sample size of >100, general medical journal type, publication date (≥2020), funding, and disclosure of the number of interim analyzes.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that RCTs with AD had suboptimal reporting of 2020 ACE checklist items, particularly AD-specific items. Following the development of ACE guidelines, stricter adherence to the ACE guideline is necessary to improve their reporting quality. Pre-ACE and post-ACE adherence comparisons can be conducted in the future.

A scoping review identifies multiple comments suggesting modifications to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010

OBJECTIVES

To identify, summarize, and analyse comments on the core reporting guidelines for protocols of randomized trials (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT] 2013) and for completed trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] 2010), with special emphasis on suggestions for guideline modifications.

METHODS

We included documents written in English and published after 2010 that explicitly commented on SPIRIT 2013 or CONSORT 2010. We searched four bibliographic databases (Embase and MEDLINE to June 2022; Web of Science and Google Scholar to April 2022) and other sources (e.g., the EQUATOR Network website, the BMC Blog Network, and the BMJ rapid response section). Two authors independently assessed documents for eligibility and extracted data on basic characteristics and the wording of the main comments. We categorized comments as 'suggestion for modification to the wording of an existing guideline item,' 'suggestion for a new item,' or 'reflections on challenges or strengths.' We provided a summary and examples of the proposed suggestions and categorized comments into those that were directly linked to empirical investigations, were continuations of previous methodological discussions, or reflected new methodological developments.

RESULTS

We assessed full text of 2,320 potentially eligible documents and included 93 documents with 114 comments. In total, 37 comments suggested modifications to existing guideline items. The participant flow section of CONSORT 2010 received the most comments (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add numbers on nonrandomized screened participants). There were 46 comments suggesting new items. Multiple suggestions were related to trial interventions (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on cointerventions), blinding (six comments suggested to add content on risk of unblinding), statistical methods (five comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on blinding of statisticians), and participant flow (seven comments made different suggestions, e.g., three comments suggested to add content on missing data). Half (53%) of the suggestions were directly linked to empirical investigations. Six (7%) suggestions were continuations of previous methodological discussions and five (6%) suggestions reflected new methodological developments related to conflicts of interest and funding, data sharing, and patient and public involvement.

CONCLUSION

The issues raised provide context to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers of trials using SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 and inform the planned updates of the core guidelines.

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications.

RESULTS

We identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.

The evaluation of reporting of patient-reported outcomes in MDD: A meta-epidemiological study of clinical trials

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a multifaceted disease that profoundly affects quality of life. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to better understand patient perspectives on interventions. Therefore, we sought to assess the completeness of reporting PROs in RCTs addressing MDD. We identified RCTs evaluating MDD containing a PRO measure published between 2016 and 2020 from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion of studies was performed in duplicate. The completion of reporting of RCTs was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) adaptation. Bivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate reporting completeness and trial characteristics. A total of 49 RCTs were included in our analysis, with a mean CONSORT-PRO completion score of 56.7% (SD = 17.3).Our findings show a significant association with completeness of reporting and the following: secondary PRO trials were less completely reported as compared to primary PRO trials (t = -3.19, p = .003); studies with a follow-up period between six months and year were more completely reported as compared to three months or less (6 months to a year, t = 2.34, p = .024); and increased trial sample size was associated with more completeness of reporting (t = 3.17, p = .003). As compared to brain stimulation, the intervention types classified as combination, other, and psychotherapy had greater completeness of reporting (combination, t = 2.35, p = .024; other, t = 3.13, p = .003; psychotherapy, t = 3.41, p = .001). There were no other significant findings. Our study found the completeness of PRO reporting to be inconsistent in RCTs regarding MDD. Moreover, we advocate for the need to establish a core outcome set relevant to the management of adults diagnosed with MDD and facilitate training on the application of PRO data.