Quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials conducted in China on the treatment of cancer pain

Methodological and ethical quality of surgical trials from 2016 to 2020

PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard tool used to evaluate therapeutic interventions. The published results showed that progress still needs to be made not only from a methodological point of view but also from an ethical point of view. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological and ethical qualities of randomized clinical trials in surgery over the last few years.

METHODS

All of the articles chosen for review reported on randomized controlled surgical trials and were published in 10 international journals between 2016 and 2020. Eligible studies were identified, selected, and then evaluated based on a broad set of predetermined criteria. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and ethical quality was evaluated using the Berdeu score.

RESULTS

The methodological quality score (Jadad scale) ranged from 5 to 13, with a mean of 10.0 ± 1.54. The methodological quality was insufficient (score ≤ 9) for 162 trials (31.2%). The ethical quality score ranged from 0.25 to 1, with a mean of 0.8 ± 0.11. Fifty-two articles (10%) did not state that informed consent was requested from the participants, and 21 articles (4%) did not report either research ethics committee or institutional committee protocol approval.

CONCLUSION

The randomized clinical surgical trials analyzed showed that they had satisfactory methods in only 70% of the cases and that they had respected the fundamental ethical principles in 90% of the cases. However, less than 8% of the studies reported planned interim analysis, prospectively defined stopping rules, and independent monitoring committee.

Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Neurological Diseases Conducted in China

Objectives

To investigate the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for neurological disorders conducted in China before and after the implementation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines.

Methods

The quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from CONSORT and STRICTA. CONSORT and STRICTA were developed in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Thus, for the date of publication we selected 2-year periods, at 5-yearly intervals: 1994–1995; 1999–2000; 2004–2005 and 2009–2010. These selections cover the periods before the publication dates of both guidelines (1996, 2001) and at least 3 years afterwards, and provide reasonably up-to-date data. We calculated the total score for each guideline and compared reported differences during different date ranges.

Results

For CONSORT items (maximum score 8), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994–1995 and 1999–2000 combined (2.5±0.6) and 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 combined (3.0±0.9) (difference 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). For STRICTA items (maximum score 17), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994–1995 and 1999–2000 combined (8.9±1.8) and 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 combined (10.3±1.6) (difference 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9).

Conclusions

The quality of reporting for studies of acupuncture for neurological disorders has generally improved since the implementation of STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Assessing the quality of reports about randomized controlled trials of scalp acupuncture combined with another treatment for stroke

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to assess the quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of scalp acupuncture for the treatment of stroke.

METHODS

The following 8 databases were systematically investigated from their inception to December 2015: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, National Institute of Informatics Scholarly and Academic Information Navigator, National Digital Science Library, Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal, and Korean Studies Information Service System. RCTs utilizing scalp acupuncture as an intervention for stroke were selected, and the quality of reports was assessed based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 statement (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture 2010 (STRICTA). For each study, the overall quality score (OQS) of 13 CONSORT items, a combined key methodological index score (MIS) of 5 CONSORT items, and the OQS of 17 STRICTA items were measured.

RESULTS

The original reports of 63 RCTs were ultimately obtained, and the median CONSORT OQS was 7 (minimum 2, maximum 11). Particularly, the items 'trial design', 'sample size', 'ancillary analyses', and 'harms' had a positive rate of less than 10%. The median MIS was 1 (minimum 0, maximum 5), with 'allocation concealment and implementation' and 'intent-to-treat analysis (ITT) analysis' having a positive rate of less than 10%. The median STRICTA OQS was 11 (minimum 6, maximum 14), and only the items 'sample size' and 'intent-to-treat analysis' were reported, with a positive rate of less than 10%. The mean CONSORT OQS increased by approximately 0.81 for each 5-year period in which manuscripts were published (95% confidence interval: 0.43 to 1.19; p < 0.001). No variable was significantly associated with MIS in the ordinal regression model.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reports on RCTs investigating scalp acupuncture treatment for stroke was moderate to low. Furthermore, reporting of some items was either insufficient or inadequate in the majority of studies. In order to improve and standardize the quality of RCTs investigating scalp acupuncture for stroke, CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines should be utilized more frequently.

Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the treatment of melasma conducted in China

BACKGROUND

There is no existing report on the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of melasma treatment currently conducted in China. This study aims to assess the quality of RCT- reporting in the treatment of melasma conducted in China.

METHODS

Several databases were searched from their inception through to August 2014. In order to rate the report quality, we scored 1 for the item if it was reported in CONSORT 2010 and 0 for the item if it was not definitely stated or was not clear. For overall quality score (OQS), 13 items were scored and calculated with a range of 0 to 13. Five items ('randomization', 'allocation concealment', 'blinding', 'baseline characteristics' and 'intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis') were scored and a key methodological index score (MIS) was calculated with a range of 0 to 5 for each trial.

RESULTS

A total of 246 relevant RCTs were included in the final analysis. The median OQS was 7, with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 11. Some items' information was insufficient, especially in the categories of 'trial design', 'sample size', 'recruitment' and 'ancillary analyses' with a positive rate of less than 20%. The median MIS was 1 with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 3. Some items' reporting was poor, especially in the categories of 'randomization', 'allocation concealment and implementation', 'blinding' and 'ITT analysis' with a positive rate of less than 10%. The mean OQS increased by about 0.52 for manuscripts published in the period of 5-year increments (95% CI: 0.32 to 0.72; P < 0.001). With regard to the MIS, no variable was statistically significant in the ordinal regression model.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of RCTs in the treatment of melasma conducted in China is not satisfactory especially in key methodological items. Reporting of RCTs in this field should meet and keep up with the standards of the CONSORT statement.

A retrospective survey of quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials of metformin for polycystic ovary syndrome

Background

From previous reviews, there still have been controversies over the effect of metformin (MET) on reproductive function in PCOS patients. The reasons for the inconsistent findings especially lie in the transparency and accuracy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reports. However, we could find no data about the quality of RCTs reporting in MET for PCOS. Thus, a retrospective survey related to the quality of reporting in MET for PCOS was conducted.

Methods

A retrospective survey was conducted by two investigators. Two investigators assessed the quality of overall reporting and key methodological factors reporting using items from the CONSORT 2010 statement.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs were included in full text. The median overall quality score was 9, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 13. Good or general reporting existed in 11 items with positive rate of more than or equal to 50%. The median score of key methodological items was 4 with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 5. Randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, baseline characteristics and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis were reported in 26 (67%), 19 (49%), 20 (51%), 38 (97%) and 17 (44%) of the 39 RCTs, respectively. After adjustment, the mean overall score increased by about 1.71 for manuscripts with funding source (95% CI, 0.18 to 3.24), while it increased by about 3.51 for manuscripts published in one year increment (95% CI, 1.82 to 5.19). There was a relatively close, significant correlation (r = 0.589, P < 0.001) between the score of overall reporting quality and year of publication.

Conclusion

Although the overall reporting quality of RCTs in MET for PCOS has improved over time, reporting of key methodological items remains poor. Reporting of RCTs on MET for PCOS should keep up with the standards of the CONSORT statement.

Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with traditional chinese medicine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

After the publication of the CONSORT 2010 statement, few studies have been conducted to assess the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the current situation of the reporting quality of RCTs in leading medical journals in China with the CONSORT 2010 statement as criteria.

METHODS

The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic database was searched for RCTs on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with TCM published in the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica from January to December 2011. We excluded trials reported as "animal studies", "in vitro studies", "case studies", or "systematic reviews". The CONSORT checklist was applied by two independent raters to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible trials after discussing and comprehending the items thoroughly. Each item in the checklist was graded as either "yes" or "no" depending on whether it had been reported by the authors.

RESULTS

We identified 27 RCTs. According to the 37 items in the CONSORT checklist, the average reporting percentage was 45.0%, in which the average reporting percentage for the "title and abstract", the "introduction", the "methods", the "results", the "discussion" and the "other information" was 33.3%, 88.9%, 36.4%, 54.4%, 71.6% and 14.8%, respectively. In the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica the average reporting percentage was 42.2%, 56.8%, and 46.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCTs in these three journals was insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trials. We recommend that editors require authors to use the CONSORT statement when reporting their trial results as a condition of publication.

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

Background

Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies.

Methods

We undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Our search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies.

Conclusion

Reporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.