The reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials of hypertension using the CONSORT criteria for harm reporting

Assessment of Harms Reporting Quality in Randomized Controlled Trials of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Background

Rhinoplasty is one of the most common aesthetic plastic surgery procedures. Complications can lead to both aesthetic and functional impairments. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Harms statement was developed to promote improved reporting of harm across randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review is to assess harms reporting quality across RCTs on aesthetic rhinoplasty.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases (January 1, 2005 to August 4, 2023). RCTs which compared 2 or more interventions in rhinoplasty with primarily aesthetic indications and assessed patient-important outcomes were included. The reporting quality was assessed by following a 40-item checklist endorsed by the 2022 CONSORT Harms Extension update.

Results

A total of 58 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen RCTs addressed harms of treatment in some capacity. Overall, the reporting quality across RCTs was poor, with a median CONSORT Harms score of 33% (range, 16%-83%). A reporting adherence of ≥50% was met by only 8 studies. There was no significant difference in reporting adherence between studies based on journal endorsement of CONSORT or industry vs nonindustry funding sources (P > .05). A high journal impact factor was significantly associated with a higher reporting quality (P = .044).

Conclusions

CONSORT Harms reporting adherence was poor across the majority of included RCTs. Future trials on aesthetic rhinoplasty should aim to follow the reporting recommendations endorsed by the CONSORT Harms statement to increase transparency and minimize heterogeneity in harms reporting across studies.

Level of Evidence 1

Reporting of Complications in Rhinoplasty Randomized Controlled Trials: An Analysis Using the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the completeness of adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized control trials (RCTs) focused on rhinoplasty, using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension for Harms checklist.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional design was employed to review RCTs related to rhinoplasty published between January 1, 2005, and January 28, 2022.

SETTING

The study analyzed clinical trials on rhinoplasty retrieved from PubMed.

METHODS

We performed a comprehension search on PubMed, blind and duplicate screening, and data extraction. Adherence to the 18 recommendations of the CONSORT Extension for Harms was evaluated, with 1 point assigned for each adhered item. Percent adherence was calculated based on the 18 points, taking into account the multiple subcategories within some recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Our search returned 240 articles, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. No RCTs adhered to all 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items. Twenty-six (26/56, 46.4%) adhered to ≥50% of the items, and 30 (30/56, 53.6%) adhered to ≥33.3% of the items. Seven (7/56, 12.5%) RCTs adhered to no items. Across all RCTs, the average number of CONSORT-Harms items adhered to was 7.2 (7.2/18, 40.0%). The most adhered to item was item 10. Discussion balanced with regard to efficacy and AEs (80.4%, [70.0-90.8]).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the inadequacy of AE reporting in rhinoplasty RCTs according to CONSORT-Harms guidelines. Urgent efforts are required to bridge this reporting gap and enhance transparency in surgical research, ultimately safeguarding patient well-being.

Transparency Matters: Assessing Harms Reporting Compliance in Randomized Controlled Trials Underpinning the AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

BACKGROUND

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Primary studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are cited as evidence for the guidelines. Given the influence that these trials have on patient care, adherence to standardized protocols for conducting and reporting RCTs is essential.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Extension for Harms-related reporting of RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the AAOS CPG on the management of ACL tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

The reference section of the AAOS guideline for ACL tears was first screened for RCTs cited in the CPG. Next, each RCT was evaluated for adherence to the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Both identification of RCTs and assessment of adherence were performed in a masked and duplicate process. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Extension for Harms items. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the relationship between the year of publication and adherence to CONSORT harms reporting.

RESULTS

The sample included 113 RCTs, of which 16 (14.2%) were published before the CONSORT Extension for Harms was implemented in 2004. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 4564 participants, with a mean of 228. None of the included RCTs included all 18 items in the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. The mean number of checklist items reported was 4 (of 18; 22.2%). A moderate, positive, and statistically significant correlation was found between the RCT publication year and the adherence with reporting of the CONSORT Extension for Harms (t111 = 3.54; P < .001) (r = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.47).

CONCLUSION

Harms were infrequently reported in RCTs cited as supporting evidence in the AAOS CPG for the management of ACL tears. One encouraging finding was the positive correlation between the year when RCTs were published and how well they adhered to reporting harms. Efforts to improve adverse event reporting are warranted, as RCTs are commonly used to make clinical decisions in orthopaedic surgery.

Harms reporting in randomized controlled trials underpinning the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for glenohumeral osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain. As such, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to address the management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. These CPG recommendations stem from the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which have been shown to influence clinical decision making and health policy. Therefore, it is essential that trial outcomes, including harms data (ie, adverse events), are adequately reported. We intend to evaluate the reporting quality of harms-related data in orthopedic literature specifically relating to AAOS CPG recommendations on the management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) as well as guidance for reporting meta-research. The AAOS CPGs for glenohumeral osteoarthritis were obtained from orthoguidelines.org, and 2 authors independently screened the guidelines for the RCTs referenced. A total of 14 studies were identified. Data were extracted from the 14 included studies independently by the same 2 authors. Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms Checklist was assessed using an 18-item scoring chart, with 1 point being awarded for meeting a checklist item and 0 points being awarded for not meeting a checklist item. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals were used to summarize RCT adherence to the CONSORT checklist.

RESULTS

The average score among the studies included was 7.36/18 items (39% adherence). No study adhered to all criteria, with the highest-performing study meeting 11 of 18 items (58%) and the lowest meeting 3 of 18 items (16%). A positive correlation between checklist score and year of publication was observed, with studies published more recently receiving a higher score on the CONSORT checklist (P < .05). Studies that disclosed funding information received a higher score than those that did not (P < .05), but there was no significant difference when the different funding sources were compared. Finally, double-blinded studies scored higher on the checklist than those with lower levels of blinding (single or no blinding, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Adverse events are poorly reported amongst RCTs cited as supporting evidence for AAOS Management of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis CPGs, evidenced by a CONSORT checklist compliance rate of only 41% in this study. We recommend the development of an updated checklist with information that makes it easier for authors to recognize, evaluate, and report on harms data. Additionally, we encourage authors to include information about adverse events or negative outcomes in the abstract.

Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews that assess the benefits of interventions often do not completely capture all dimensions of the adverse effects. This cross-sectional study (part 1 of 2 studies) assessed whether adverse effects were sought, whether the findings on these effects were reported, and what types of adverse effects were identified in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions on human patients of any health status, sex, age, and demographics, and socio-economic status, in any type of setting assessing any type of adverse effect scored at any endpoint or timing were eligible. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 5 leading orthodontic journals were manually searched for eligible reviews between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Study selection and data extraction was conducted by two researchers independently. Prevalence proportions were calculated for four outcomes on seeking and reporting of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions. Univariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between each one of these outcomes and the journal in which the systematic review was published using the eligible Cochrane reviews as reference.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight eligible systematic reviews were identified. 35.7% (35/98) of reviews defined seeking of adverse effects as a research objective, 85.7% (84/98) sought adverse effects, 84.7% (83/98) reported findings related to adverse effects, and 90.8% (89/98) considered or discussed potential adverse effects in the review. Reviews in the journal Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research compared with Cochrane reviews had approximately 7 times the odds (OR 7.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 47.96) to define seeking of adverse effects in the research objectives. Five of the 12 categories of adverse effects accounted for 83.1% (162/195) of all adverse effects sought and reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of included reviews sought and reported adverse effects of orthodontic interventions, end-users of these reviews should beware that these findings do not give the complete spectrum on these effects and that they could be jeopardized by the risk of non-systematically assessing and reporting of adverse effects in these reviews and in the primary studies that feed them. Much research is ahead such as developing core outcome sets on adverse effects of interventions for both primary studies and systematic reviews.

Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2)

BACKGROUND

It is critical that abstracts of systematic reviews transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions without misleading the readers. This cross-sectional study assessed whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study (part 2 of 2) used the same sample of 98 systematic reviews orthodontic interventions as used in part 1. Eligible reviews were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the 5 leading orthodontic journals between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Prevalence proportions were sought for 3 outcomes as defined in the published protocol. Univariable logistic regression models were built to explore associations between the presence of spin in the abstract and a series of predictors. Odds ratios (OR) 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to quantify the strength of associations and their precision.

RESULTS

76.5% (75/98) of eligible reviews reported or considered (i.e., discussed, weighted etc.) potential adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract and the proportion of spin on adverse effects was 40.8% (40/98) in the abstract of these reviews. Misleading reporting was the predominant category of spin, i.e., 90% (36/40). Our explorative analyses found that compared to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews all 5 orthodontic journals had similar odds of the presence of spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. The odds of the presence of spin did not change over the sampled years (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.16) and did not depend on the number of authors (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.21), or on the type of orthodontic intervention (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.67), or whether conflicts of interests were reported (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.68).

CONCLUSION

End users of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions have to be careful when interpreting results on adverse effects in the abstracts of these reviews, because they could be jeopardized by uncertainties such as not being reported and misleading reporting as a result of spin.

Reporting of Complications in Retinal Detachment Surgical Trials: A Systematic Review Using the CONSORT Extension for Harms

IMPORTANCE

Knowledge on the frequency and severity of complications in surgical trials for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is essential to determine whether surgical procedures are developed and compared adequately, taking into account not only efficacy but also harms.

OBJECTIVE

To review standards of reporting of complications in recent randomized clinical trials of RRD surgery.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review included randomized clinical trials on RRD surgery published between January 2008 and January 2021 in Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collection databases. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles retrieved were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent authors. Eligible studies were evaluated against checklist items from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Extension for Harms criteria by 2 independent authors, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third author.

FINDINGS

Fifty studies were included. The median number of checklist items fulfilled was 8 (range, 0-15), of a possible total of 18. Frequently reported items were discussions balanced with regard to efficacy and adverse events (42 studies [84%]) and inclusions of harm-associated timing of data collection (41 studies [82%]). The least frequently reported items were distinctions between expected and unexpected adverse events (1 study [2%]) and mentions of the use of a validated instrument to report adverse event severity (4 studies [8%]). Frequency of complications was commonly reported (29 studies [58%]) in contrast with complication severity (10 studies [20%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review suggests that severity of complications of RRD surgery has been infrequently quantified and reported in randomized clinical trials and potentially represents an important area of improvement in future RRD surgical trials.

Identification, collection, and reporting of harms among non-industry-sponsored randomized clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in the critically ill population: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prescribing pharmacologic therapies for critically ill patients requires a careful balancing of risks and benefits. Defining, monitoring, and reporting harms that occur in clinical trials conducted in critically ill populations, however, is challenging given that the natural history of most critical illnesses includes progressive multiple organ failure and death. In this study, we assessed harms reporting in clinical trials performed in critically ill populations.

METHODS

Randomized, non-industry-sponsored, human clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in adult critically ill populations published between 2015 and 2018 in high-impact journals were included in this systematic review. Harms data, adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harms reporting guidelines, and restrictions on harms reporting were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 707 abstracts were screened with 40 trials ultimately being included in the analysis. Included trials represent 28,636 randomized patients with a median of 292 (IQR 100-546) patients per trial. The most common disease states were general critical care (33%) and sepsis (28%). Of 18 included CONSORT items, the median number met was 12 (IQR 9, 14). The most commonly missed items were adverse event (AE) severity grading definitions and AE attribution (relationship of AE to study drug), which were only reported in 35 and 38% of manuscripts, respectively. Half of the manuscripts (48%) provided definitions for recorded AEs. There were 5 studies investigating the effects of corticosteroids in sepsis, with the number of AEs reported per analyzed patient ranging from 0.01 to 1.89. AE definitions in studies of similar/equivalent interventions often varied substantially. Study protocols were available for 30/40 (75%) of studies, with 13 (43%) of those not providing any guidance regarding AE attribution.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized trials of pharmacologic interventions conducted in critically ill populations and published in high impact journals often fail to adequately describe AE definitions, severity, attribution, and collection procedures. Among trials of similar interventions in comparable populations, variation in AE collection and reporting procedures is substantial. These factors may limit a clinician's ability to accurately balance the potential benefits and harms of an intervention.

Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews

Background

Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called “spin”. In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin.

Methods

Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of “spin” related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups.

Discussion

We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are still harmful and ineffective. Responses to the comments by Hieronymus et al

In this response, we address point by point the additional issues raised by Hieronymus et al. in their second round of critique of our systematic review on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression. We repulse that we are biased or mistaken in any major ways. We acknowledge that we missed a few small, mostly unpublished trials, and we made a few minor errors in our systematic review. However, these omissions and errors neither have any impact on our overall results nor on our conclusions. The critique by Hieronymus et al. seems to raise questions about their understanding of the systematic review process, and, on several occasions, they wrongly claimed that we made errors. Our analyses should be impartial and free from any biases or prejudices as we do not have any obligation to support the interests of sponsors or other groups.

Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Before implementing healthcare interventions, clinicians need to weigh the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions. However, a large body of evidence has demonstrated that seeking and reporting of adverse effects is suboptimal in clinical trials and in systematic reviews of interventions. This cross-sectional study will investigate the status of this problem in orthodontics. This study will assess whether adverse effects were sought and whether findings related to adverse effects were reported in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published between 01 August 2009 and 31 July 2019 in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database will be included. Empty reviews will be excluded. The reporting of outcomes on adverse effects will not determine eligibility, i.e., reviews will not be excluded, because they did not report usable data. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two authors. Our primary outcome will be the prevalence of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions that sought any findings related to adverse effects in the included studies. Additional prevalence statistics will be calculated on a series of items related to seeking of adverse effects in the eligible reviews. All statistics will be calculated for (1) all journals together, (2) the group of five orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately, and (3) each individual journal separately. Chi-square tests of independence will be used to compare these groups.

DISCUSSION

This study will assess whether adverse effects were sought in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This knowledge is important, because reviews that present an incomplete picture on adverse effects can have unfavorable consequences for the end-users. Also not reporting that no adverse effects were assessed in eligible studies included in a systematic review can mislead pertinent stakeholders. Our findings could have policy implications for making judgments on accepting or rejecting an intervention systematic review for publication, for example, by directing editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the various items on adverse effects defined in the MECIR standards and in the PRISMA harm checklist.

Inadequate harms reporting in randomized control trials of antibiotics for pediatric acute otitis media: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Reporting of harms in randomized control trials is often inconsistent and inadequate.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of harms reporting in randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy of antibiotics used to treat pediatric acute otitis media and to investigate whether connections to pharmaceutical companies or the publication of the CONSORT-Harms extension influenced the quality of harms reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We considered randomized control trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute otitis media in children aged 0-19. We evaluated the quality of harms reporting using a 19-item checklist addressing the recommendations endorsed in the CONSORT-Harms extension.

RESULTS

160 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall quality of reporting relating to harms was low; on average studies adhered to 55.2% of the checklist items on the quality of harms reporting. The reporting of methods relating the measurement of harms was particularly lacking; studies adhered to an average of only 33.2% of the checklist items. The overall quality of reporting did not change after the publication of the CONSORT-Harms extension. The overall quality of reporting did not differ significantly in reports with or without declared connections to pharmaceutical companies (mean quality score of 56.8% vs 52.0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Harms reporting in pediatric randomized trials, especially the reporting of methods used to collect harms data, remains inadequate.

The reporting of harms in publications on randomized controlled trials funded by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique," a French academic funding scheme

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Accurate information on harms arising from medical interventions is essential for assessing benefit-risk ratios. Since 2004, there has been an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for reporting harms data in publications on randomized clinical trials. The objective of our study was to assess the quality of this reporting from academic randomized clinical trials on drugs.

METHODS

We searched for articles on randomized clinical trials funded between 2004 and 2008 by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique." We included all published randomized clinical trials that assessed drugs. Harm-related data were extracted and compared with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension, and the space in the articles devoted to harms data was measured.

RESULTS

In total, 37 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. The median harm score was 9/18. In 73.0% of the randomized clinical trials, the reporting of adverse events was selective. Less than 50% of articles provided information on reasons for drug discontinuation that were related to adverse events. The score and the space allocated to harms were higher in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs randomized clinical trials, while the median proportion of the space in the results section allocated to harms was 16.8%. In 67.6% of the articles, the space allocated to the authors' list and affiliations was greater than the space in the results section allocated to descriptions of harms. No significant improvement in the score or the space allocation was observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of harms in French academic drug randomized clinical trials is suboptimal; moreover, this shortcoming is a critical barrier to evaluating the benefit-risk ratio of drug randomized clinical trials. Thus, the authors should be encouraged to adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension.

Characterization of gastrointestinal adverse effects reported in clinical studies of corticosteroid therapy

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether 159 studies included in a previous meta-analysis reported on gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation in accordance with the CONSORT extension for reporting harms outcomes (CONSORT Harms recommendations checklist); whether differences were associated with funding source, journal, or publication year; and whether the CONSORT Harms checklist is a suitable tool for evaluation of adverse effects reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Articles were assessed for fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations, funding source, publication type, and year. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by comparing scores for each study.

RESULTS

The mean CONSORT Harms score was 5.25 out of 10 (standard deviation ± 2.09). Most studies included information on participant withdrawals (133 studies, 83.6%), absolute risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (130 studies, 81.8%), and how harms-related information was collected (118 studies, 74.2%). Reporting of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation increased with higher scores (odds ratio 1.173, P = 0.042). There was no significant association between CONSORT Harms score achieved and publication year or funding source, but there was a trend toward higher scores in studies published in the major medical journals (score difference 0.78, P = 0.052). Definitions of gastrointestinal bleeding differed between studies. Reviewer agreement was fair to moderate with large variations.

CONCLUSION

Few studies in the systematic review received high scores using the CONSORT Harms criteria. Most studies reported on the most important criteria regarding risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Reviewer agreement showed large variations due to imprecise texts and ambiguous criteria. Routine scoring according to fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations would be inadvisable without qualified judgment.

Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension

OBJECTIVE

To determine the standard of reporting of harms-related data, in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for harms.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane library, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant literature.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included publications of studies that used the CONSORT harms extension to assess the reporting of harms in RCTs.

RESULTS

We identified 7 studies which included between 10 and 205 RCTs. The clinical areas of the 7 studies were: hypertension (1), urology (1), epilepsy (1), complimentary medicine (2) and two not restricted to a clinical topic. Quality of the 7 studies was assessed by a risk of bias tool and was found to be variable. Adherence to the CONSORT harms criteria reported in the 7 studies was inadequate and variable across the items in the checklist. Adverse events are poorly defined, with 6 studies failing to exceed 50% adherence to the items in the checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Readers of RCT publications need to be able to balance the trade-offs between benefits and harms of interventions. This systematic review suggests that this is compromised due to poor reporting of harms which is evident across a range of clinical areas. Improvements in quality could be achieved by wider adoption of the CONSORT harms criteria by journals reporting RCTs.

Declaration of transparency for each research article

An antidote to inadequate reporting of research

Reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials in periodontology: a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Reporting of adverse events is of paramount importance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to guide the implementation of new therapeutic approaches in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of adverse events reporting in RCTs published in the periodontal literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two authors (CMF and NNG) searched the PubMed and LILACS electronic databases independently and in duplicate to identify RCTs published in periodontology from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012. Reporting quality in RCTs was assessed with reference to the 2004 CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Differences in adverse events reporting between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs were also determined. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to determine the extent of inter-reviewer agreement. Fischer's exact test was used to assess differences in reporting between the two samples.

RESULTS

The analysis included 246 publications. One hundred twenty-four of 990 (13%) items and 223 of 1460 (15%) items were adequately reported in publications from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012 respectively. Three checklist topics were significantly better reported in the 2011-2012 sample; two recommendations were better reported in non-industry-funded trials in publications from both periods.

CONCLUSION

Improvement and standardization of adverse events reporting in periodontology are needed.