Adherence to CONSORT Guidelines and Reporting of the Determinants of External Validity in Clinical Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials: A Review of Trials Published in Four Major Journals between 2013 and 2015

Eligible Infants Included in Neonatal Clinical Trials and Reasons for Noninclusion: A Systematic Review

Importance

Results of clinical trials can only represent included participants, and many neonatal trials fail due to insufficient participation. Infants not included in research may differ from those included in meaningful ways, biasing the sample and limiting the generalizability of findings.

Objective

To describe the proportion of eligible infants included in neonatal clinical trials and the reasons for noninclusion.

Evidence Review

A systematic search of Cochrane CENTRAL was performed by retrieving articles meeting the following inclusion criteria: full-length, peer-reviewed articles describing clinical trial results in at least 20 human infants from US neonatal intensive care units, published in English, and added to Cochrane CENTRAL between 2017 and 2022. Retrieved articles were screened for inclusion by 2 independent researchers.

Findings

In total 120 articles met inclusion criteria and 91 of these (75.8%) reported the number of infants eligible for participation, which totaled 26 854 in aggregate. Drawing from these, an aggregate of 11 924 eligible infants (44.4%) were included in reported results. Among all eligible infants, most reasons for noninclusion in results were classified as modifiable or potentially modifiable by the research team. Parents declining to participate (8004 infants [29.8%]) or never being approached (2507 infants [9.3%]) were the 2 predominant reasons for noninclusion. Other modifiable reasons included factors related to study logistics, such as failure to appropriately collect data on enrolled infants (859 of 26 854 infants [3.2%]) and other reasons (1907 of 26 854 infants [7.1%]), such as loss to follow-up or eligible participants that were unaccounted for. Nonmodifiable reasons, including clinical change or death, accounted for a small proportion of eligible infants who were not included (858 of 26 854 infants [3.2%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review of reporting on eligible infants included and not included in neonatal clinical trials highlights the need for improved documentation on the flow of eligible infants through neonatal clinical trials and may also inform recruitment expectations for trialists designing future protocols. Improved adherence to standardized reporting may clarify which potential participants are being missed, improving understanding of the generalizability of research findings. Furthermore, these findings suggest that future work to understand why parents decline to participate in neonatal research trials and why some are never approached about research may help increase overall participation.

Immediate, Short-term, Medium-term, and Long-term effects of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is increasingly being studied as a treatment for smoking cessation. However, its immediate, short-, and long-term effects have rarely been reviewed.

METHODS

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of immediate, short-, medium-, and long-term smoking cessation rates in ACT and comparators at less than 3-month, 3 to 4-month, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in eight databases until April 20, 2023. We assessed the quality of RCTs and the certainty of evidence of outcomes.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs involving 7885 smokers across six countries were included. The majority (72.81%) of RCTs were graded as low risk across six domains. For complete-case outcomes, meta-analyses were conducted, and the results revealed a significant effect in favor of ACT [risk ratio: 1.70-1.80 at <3-month, 3 to 4-month, and 6 months follow-up] compared with comparators. For outcomes using missing data management, meta-analyses found an overall effect in favor of ACT, but a significant effect was found at 3 to 4-months only. However, 12-month follow-ups revealed no significant reduction in smoking cessation for both outcomes. Moderate and substantial heterogeneities were found among four meta-analyses that may lead to inaccurate estimates of effects. The certainty of evidence of all outcomes was rated as low and very low.

CONCLUSION

ACT may be an effective intervention for smoking cessation with immediate, short-term, and medium-term effects. Caution must be applied in the interpretation of the results due to the limited trials and low certainty of evidence.

IMPLICATION

ACT can be implemented adjuvant to the usual treatment for smoking cessation. Additional RCTs with follow-up data using biochemically verified measures in non-US countries are warranted.