The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review

A Bibliometric Analysis on Adherence to Reporting Standards for Endovascular Treatment of Chronic Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) involves a broad spectrum of therapies including many new and emerging techniques. To standardize the results of studies examining this pathology and to allow critical analysis and comparison between studies, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) recommended reporting standard guidelines for the endovascular management of CLTI in 2016. Research studies that do not adhere to complete reporting standards are often more ambiguous in impact and external validity, leading to bias and misinformation that has potentially damaging effects on clinical decision-making. We thus sought to examine adherence to and factors associated with noncompliance with these recommended guidelines.

METHODS

A literature database search was conducted to include all clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and retrospective comparative studies written in English examining the endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD)/CLTI from January 2020 to August 2022. Systematic reviews, case reports, and meta-analysis were excluded. The manuscripts were reviewed for adherence with the SVS guidelines (overall and by guideline subcategories based on demographics, treatment methods, and outcomes), and factors associated with this adherence were determined. These data were used to calculate descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-four manuscripts were identified from this time frame. On average, articles reviewed reported on 42.0% of the SVS reporting standards (range, 25.0-65.2%, Fig 1) with 74.1% of articles (n = 40) not adhering to at least 50.0% of the standards. Manuscripts most completely followed guidelines regarding "patient factors" and were least likely to demonstrate adherence to the description of CLTI and study complications. Within the guideline subcategories, complete adherence to guidelines was not demonstrated in any manuscript in stent trials, disease outcome measures, technical outcome measures, patient factors and critical limb ischemia description, and complete adherence rates within the other subcategories was low (range, 5.6-18.6%). Studies conducted within the United States and those with industry sponsorship were more likely to adhere to >50% of the reporting standards (P < 0.05). Journal impact factor, year of publication, and number of authors had no correlation to the percent adherence to guidelines in specific categories or adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to reporting standard guidelines for endovascular treatment of lower extremity PAD specifically outlined by the SVS is suboptimal regardless of the quality of the journal the research is published in. Increasing adherence to reporting standards to provide a framework for comparison of studies across techniques used should be prioritized by authors, journal editors, and vascular societies.

Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials

BACKGROUND

Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting.

CONCLUSION

Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs.

RESULTS

53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Although many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.

Compliance of Published Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effect of Physical Activity on Primary Dysmenorrhea with the Consortium's Integrated Report on Clinical Trials Statement: A Critical Appraisal of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are reliable methods for the evaluation of treatment effectiveness, which should be rigorous and must report with clarity. This study aimed to assess the compliance of published RCTs about the effect of physical activity on primary dysmenorrhea with the CONSORT 2017 statement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, the review of literature was carried out based on Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). All the clinical trials focused on the effect of the physical activity on primary dysmenorrhea indexed in Web of Science, Pubmed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Embase, Magiran and Scientific Information Database (SID) were searched using keywords of dysmenorrhea, randomized clinical trial, physical activity and exercise from 2000 to 2019. Out of 1423 articles, 30 RCTs were critically appraised using CONSORT 2017 checklist. The reporting quality score of articles was identified between zero and 43.

RESULTS

The compliance rate with the CONSORT checklist was 55.58%. The mean (SD) score of the reporting quality was 23.37 (-5.15) with a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 37. The maximum weakness was in reporting the sample size and full trial protocol 23.33% and 6.67% respectively. Regarding new items of the consort 2017, if the blinding was not possible, the description of any attempts to limit bias was not described in 70% of articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting sample size, trial protocol, method of blinding, and control of bias are issues that require more attention in reporting of RCT studies. We recommend that the authors use the CONSORT 2017 statement for conducting and reporting the clinical trials.

More pilot trials could plan to use qualitative data: a meta-epidemiological study

Background

Pilot trials often use quantitative data such as recruitment rate and retention rate to inform the design and feasibility of a larger trial. However, qualitative data such as patient, healthcare provider, and research staff perceptions of an intervention may also provide insights for a larger trial.

Methods

As part of a larger study investigating the reporting of progression criteria in pilot studies, we sought to determine how often pilot studies planned to use qualitative data to inform the design and feasibility of a larger trial and the factors associated with plans to use qualitative data. We searched for protocols of pilot studies of randomized trials in PubMed between 2013 and 2017.

Results

We included 227 articles. Only 92 (40.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 34.1–47.2) reported plans to collect qualitative data. The factors associated with collecting qualitative data were large studies (defined as sample size ≥ 60; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.77; 95% CI 1.47–5.23; p = 0.002) and studies from Europe (aOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.68–8.88; p = 0.001) compared to North America and the rest of the world. Pilot trials with pharmacological interventions were less likely to plan to collect qualitative data (aOR 0.20; 95% CI 0.07–0.58; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Qualitative data is not used enough in pilot trials. Large pilot trials, pilot trials from Europe, and pilot trials of non-pharmacological interventions are more likely to plan for qualitative data.

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.

A Descriptive Systematic Review of Physical Activity Interventions for Caregivers: Effects on Caregivers' and Care Recipients' Psychosocial Outcomes, Physical Activity Levels, and Physical Health

BACKGROUND

Caregiving can adversely impact individuals' psychosocial and physical well-being. An important task in health research is to find effective ways to enhance caregivers' health and functioning.

PURPOSE

To provide a systematic review of the efficacy of physical activity (PA) interventions for caregivers on their and the care recipients' psychosocial outcomes, PA levels, and physical health.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, a descriptive systematic review of studies examining the effects of PA interventions for caregivers on their outcomes and those of the care recipients was conducted. Studies were primarily identified through searching electronic databases.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were reviewed. PA interventions significantly decreased caregivers' distress and increased their well-being, quality of life, sleep quality, PA levels, self-efficacy for caregiving or exercise, and readiness for exercise. Most PA interventions targeted the caregiver alone. Two studies examined the impact of the intervention on the care recipient and found no significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

PA interventions hold promise in improving caregivers' outcomes. However, more high quality trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of written self-administered psychosocial interventions among adults with a physical illness

OBJECTIVE

The cost of implementing professionally-led psychosocial interventions has limited their integration into routine care. To enhance the translation of effective psychosocial interventions in routine care, a self-administered format is sometimes used. The meta-analysis examined the efficacy of written self-administered, psychosocial interventions to improve outcomes among individuals with a physical illness.

METHODS

Studies comparing a written self-administered intervention to a control group were identified through electronic databases searching. Pooled effect sizes were calculated across follow-up time points using random-effects models. Studies were also categorised according to three levels of guidance (self-administered, minimal contact, or guided) to examine the effect of this variable on outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty manuscripts were retained for the descriptive review and 28 for the meta-analysis. Findings were significant for anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Results were not significant for quality of life and related domains as well as coping. Purely self-administered interventions were efficacious for depression, distress, and self-efficacy; only guided interventions had an impact on anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings showed that written self-administered interventions show promise across a number of outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Self-administered interventions are a potentially efficacious and cost-effective approach to address some of the most common needs of patients with a physical illness.

Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Use of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014).