Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

It is frequent to find overlapping network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic with differences in terms of both treatments included and effect estimates. We aimed to evaluate the impact on effect estimates of selecting different treatment combinations (ie, network geometries) for inclusion in NMAs.

DESIGN

Multiverse analysis, covering all possible NMAs on different combinations of treatments.

SETTING

Data from a previously published NMA exploring the comparative effectiveness of 22 treatments (21 antidepressants and a placebo) for the treatment of acute major depressive disorder.

PARTICIPANTS

Cipriani et al explored a dataset of 116 477 patients included in 522 randomised controlled trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For each possible treatment selection, we performed an NMA to estimate comparative effectiveness on treatment response and treatment discontinuation for the treatments included (231 between-treatment comparisons). The distribution of effect estimates of between-treatment comparisons across NMAs was computed, and the direction, magnitude and statistical significance of the 1st and 99th percentiles were compared.

RESULTS

4 116 254 different NMAs concerned treatment response. Among possible network geometries, 172/231 (74%) pairwise comparisons exhibited opposite effects between the 1st and 99th percentiles, 57/231 (25%) comparisons exhibited statistically significant results in opposite directions, 118 of 231 (51%) comparisons derived results that were both significant and non-significant at 5% risk and 56/231 (24%) treatment pairs obtained consistent results with only significant differences (or only non-significant differences) at 5% risk. Comparisons based on indirect evidence only were associated with greater variability in effect estimates. Comparisons with small absolute values observed in the complete NMA more frequently obtained statistically significant results in opposite directions. Similar results were observed for treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

In this multiverse analysis, we observed that the selection of treatments to be included in an NMA could have considerable consequences on treatment effect estimations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/mb5dy.

Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of clinical trial results is an important scientific and ethical endeavour. This survey of completed interventional studies in a French academic center describes their reporting status.

METHODS

We explored all interventional studies sponsored by Rennes University Hospital identified on the French Open Science Monitor which tracks trials registered on EUCTR or clinicaltrials.gov, and provides an automatic assessment of the reporting of results. For each study, we ascertained the actual reporting of results using systematic searches on the hospital internal database, bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed), and by contacting all principal investigators (PIs). We describe several features (including total budget and numbers of trial participants) of the studies that did not report any results.

RESULTS

The French Open Science Monitor identified 93 interventional studies, among which 10 (11%) reported results. In contrast, our survey identified 36 studies (39%) reporting primary analysis results and an additional 18 (19%) reporting results for secondary analyses (without results for their primary analysis). The overall budget for studies that did not report any results was estimated to be €5,051,253 for a total of 6,735 trial participants. The most frequent reasons for the absence of results reported by PIs were lack of time for 18 (42%), and logistic difficulties (e.g. delay in obtaining results or another blocking factor) for 12 (28%). An association was found between non-publication and negative results (adjusted Odds Ratio = 4.70, 95% Confidence Interval [1.67;14.11]).

CONCLUSIONS

Even allowing for the fact that automatic searches underestimate the number of studies with published results, the level of reporting was disappointingly low. This amounts to a waste of trial participants' implication and money. Corrective actions are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/q5hcs.

Assessing the magnitude of changes from protocol to publication-a survey on Cochrane and non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews

Objective

To explore differences between published reviews and their respective protocols in a sample of 97 non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews (non-CSRs) and 97 Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) in terms of PICOS (Patients/Population, Intervention, Comparison/Control, Outcome, Study type) elements and the extent to which they were reported.

Study Design and Setting

We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify non-CSRs and CSRs that were published in 2018. We then searched for their corresponding Cochrane or PROSPERO protocols. The published reviews were compared to their protocols. The primary outcome was changes from protocol to review in terms of PICOS elements.

Results

We identified a total of 227 changes from protocol to review in PICOS elements, 1.11 (Standard Deviation (SD), 1.22) changes per review for CSRs and 1.23 (SD, 1.12) for non-CSRs per review. More than half of each sub-sample (54.6% of CSRs and 67.0% of non-CSRs) (Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) 12.4% [-1.3%; 26.0%]) had changes in PICOS elements. For both subsamples, approximately a third of all changes corresponded to changes related to primary outcomes. Marked differences were found between the sub-samples for the reporting of changes. 95.8% of the changes in PICOS items were not reported in the non-CSRs compared to 42.6% in the CSRs (ARR 53.2% [43.2%; 63.2%]).

Conclusion

CSRs showed better results than non-CSRs in terms of the reporting of changes. Reporting of changes from protocol needs to be promoted and requires general improvement. The limitations of this study lie in its observational design. Registration: https://osf.io/6j8gd/.

Are large prospective trials on antidepressants in mental disorders seeding trials? A descriptive study of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVES

This descriptive study of registered trials aimed to identify large clinical trials on antidepressants for mental disorders: (1) to assess what proportion could be labelled as 'seeding trials' (trials for marketing purposes) and (2) to describe their methodological characteristics and outcomes.

DESIGN

A search was conducted across all trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov by drug name in March 2017.

SETTING

All trials registered in the database of ClinicalTrials.gov were screened. Large registered studies were received and studies focusing prospectively on the effects of antidepressants in mental health disorders. Specific data items were extracted automatically, and subsequently inspected, corrected and completed by hand.

PARTICIPANTS

Prospective studies were selected focusing on the effects of antidepressants in any mental health disorder with 800 participants or more planned for inclusion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three members from the study team independently assessed the following 'seeding trial' characteristics in each registered study: a high level of involvement of the product manufacturer in the study design, in the data analysis and reporting of the study, an abnormally low ratio of patient numbers to study site, spin and/or omissions of clinically relevant findings in the abstracts, and conclusions that focused on secondary endpoints and surrogate markers. Secondary outcomes were the exploration of a functional outcome and suicidality.

RESULTS

31 trials were identified from clinical trials database. 18/31 were published (58%). 8 of these 18 (44%) studies were identified as possible seeding trials. 13/31 (42%) large trials planned to explore functioning and 5/31 (16%) suicidality.

CONCLUSIONS

Large trials are rare in the field of antidepressant research. Some could be 'seeding trials'. Few explored suicidality. Identifying seeding trials from incomplete data entries in registries, especially when almost half of the studies were still unpublished, posed considerable challenges. The delay between our research and publication limits the strength of our conclusions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017065591.

Published registered reports are rare, limited to one journal group, and inadequate for randomized controlled trials in the clinical field

OBJECTIVE

Registered reports (RR) are a publication format implying a peer-review of the protocol before the start of the study, followed by an in-principle acceptance (IPA) by the journal before the study starts. We aimed to describe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the clinical field published as RR.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This cross-sectional study included RR results for RCTs, identified on PubMed/Medline and on a list compiled by the Center for Open Science. It explored the proportion of reports that received IPA (and/or published a protocol before inclusion of the first patient) and changes in the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 93 RCTs publications identified as RR were included. All but one were published in the same journal group. The date of the IPA was never documented. For most of these reports (79/93, 84.9%), a protocol was published after the date of inclusion of the first patient. A change in the primary outcome was noted in 40/93 (44%) of them. Thirteen of the 40 (33%) mentioned this change.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs in the clinical field identified as RR were rare, originated from a single journal group, and did not comply with the basic features of this format.

Ten (not so) simple rules for clinical trial data-sharing

Clinical trial data-sharing is seen as an imperative for research integrity and is becoming increasingly encouraged or even required by funders, journals, and other stakeholders. However, early experiences with data-sharing have been disappointing because they are not always conducted properly. Health data is indeed sensitive and not always easy to share in a responsible way. We propose 10 rules for researchers wishing to share their data. These rules cover the majority of elements to be considered in order to start the commendable process of clinical trial data-sharing: Rule 1: Abide by local legal and regulatory data protection requirementsRule 2: Anticipate the possibility of clinical trial data-sharing before obtaining fundingRule 3: Declare your intent to share data in the registration stepRule 4: Involve research participantsRule 5: Determine the method of data accessRule 6: Remember there are several other elements to shareRule 7: Do not proceed aloneRule 8: Deploy optimal data management to ensure that the data shared is usefulRule 9: Minimize risksRule 10: Strive for excellence.

A multiverse analysis of meta-analyses assessing acupuncture efficacy for smoking cessation evidenced vibration of effects

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of methodological choices on the results of meta-analyses (MAs), with acupuncture for smoking cessation as a case study.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

After performing an umbrella review (using MEDLINE, the COCHRANE Library, the Wan Fang database, and the Chinese Journal Full-text Database/March 2018) of MAs exploring the use of acupuncture for smoking cessation, we extracted all randomized controlled trials. Numerous MAs were performed as per every possible combination of various methodological choices (e.g., characteristics of the intervention and control procedures, outcome, publication status, language) to assess their vibration of effects or more precisely the existence of a Janus effect, that is, whether the 10th and 90th percentiles in the distribution of effect sizes were in opposite directions.

RESULTS

After including 7 MAs and 39 randomized controlled trials, we performed 496,528 MAs. The effect size was negative at the 10th percentile (-0.1, favoring controls) and positive at the 90th percentile (1.17, favoring acupuncture). In all, 104,491 MAs showed a statistically significant difference in favor of acupuncture, whereas 392,037 failed to demonstrate the efficacy of acupuncture (including 96 that showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the control).

CONCLUSION

The methodological choices made in performing pairwise MAs can result in substantial vibration of effects, occasionally leading to opposite results.

Project rebuild the evidence base (REB): A method to interpret randomised clinical trials and their meta-analysis to present solid benefit-risk assessments to patients

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of shared-decision making in healthcare today. The public deserves clear, transparent and trust-worthy information on drug efficacy. Yet today, many drugs are prescribed and used without solid evidence of efficacy. Clinical trials and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the best method to evaluate drug efficacy and side effects. In a shared medical decision-making approach, general practitioners need drug assessment based on patient-important outcomes. The aim of project rebuild the evidence base (REB) is to bridge the gap between the data needed in clinical practice and the data available from clinical research. The drugs will be assessed on clinical patient important outcomes and for a population. Using the Cochrane tools, we propose to analyse for each population and outcome: 1) a meta-analysis based on RCTs with a low risk of bias overall; 2) an evaluation of results of confirmatory RCTs; 3) a statistical analysis of heterrogeneity between RCTs and 4) an analysis of publication bias. Depending on the results of these analyses, the evidence will be categorized in 4 different levels: firm evidence, evidence (to be confirmed), signal or absence of evidence. Project REB proposes a method for reading and interpreting RCTs and their meta-analysis to produce quality data for general practitioners to focus on risk-benefit assessment in the interest of patients. If this data does not exist, it could enable clinical research to better its aim.

Vibration of effect in more than 16 000 pooled analyses of individual participant data from 12 randomised controlled trials comparing canagliflozin and placebo for type 2 diabetes mellitus: multiverse analysis

Objective

To evaluate the impact of conducting all possible pooled analyses across different combinations of randomised controlled trials and endpoints.

Design

Multiverse analysis, consisting of numerous pooled analyses of individual participant data.

Setting

Individual patient data from 12 randomised controlled trials comparing canagliflozin treatment with placebo, shared on the Yale University Open Data Access project (https://yoda.yale.edu/) platform, up to 16 April 2021.

Participants

15 094 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Main outcome measures

Pooled analyses estimated changes in serum glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), major adverse cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events at weeks 12, 18, 26, and 52. The distribution of effect estimates was calculated for all possible combinations, and the direction and magnitude of the first and 99th centiles of effect estimates were compared.

Results

Across 16 332 distinct pooled analyses comparing canagliflozin with placebo for changes in HbA1c, standardised effect estimates were in favour of canagliflozin treatment at both the first centile (-0.75%) and 99th centile (-0.48%); 15 994 (97.93%) analyses showed significant results (P<0.05) in favour of canagliflozin. For major adverse cardiovascular events, estimated hazard ratios were 0.20 at the first centile and 0.90 at the 99th centile; 2705 of 8144 analyses (33.21%) were significant, all of which were in favour of canagliflozin treatment. For serious adverse events, estimated hazard ratios were 0.59 at the first centile and 1.14 at the 99th centile; 5793 of 16 332 (35.47%) analyses were significant, with 5754 in favour of canagliflozin and 39 in favour of placebo.

Conclusion

Results from pooled analyses can be subject to vibration of effects and should be critically appraised, especially regarding the risk for selection and availability bias in individual participant data retrieved.

Data Sharing and Reanalyses Among Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Surgical Journals Before and After Adoption of a Data Availability and Reproducibility Policy

Importance

Clinical trial data sharing holds promise for maximizing the value of clinical research. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) adopted a policy promoting data sharing in July 2018.

Objective

To evaluate the association of the ICMJE data sharing policy with data availability and reproducibility of main conclusions among leading surgical journals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study, conducted in October 2021, examined randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 10 leading surgical journals before and after the implementation of the ICMJE data sharing policy in July 2018.

Exposure

Implementation of the ICMJE data sharing policy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

To demonstrate a pre-post increase in data availability from 5% to 25% (α = .05; β = 0.1), 65 RCTs published before and 65 RCTs published after the policy was issued were included, and their data were requested. The primary outcome was data availability (ie, the receipt of sufficient data to enable reanalysis of the primary outcome). When data sharing was available, the primary outcomes reported in the journal articles were reanalyzed to explore reproducibility. The reproducibility features of these studies were detailed.

Results

Data were available for 2 of 65 RCTs (3.1%) published before the ICMJE policy and for 2 of 65 RCTs (3.1%) published after the policy was issued (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.07-14.19; P > .99). A data sharing statement was observed in 11 of 65 RCTs (16.9%) published after the policy vs none before the policy (risk ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.81-2.68; P = .001). Data obtained for reanalysis (n = 4) were not from RCTs published with a data sharing statement. Of the 4 RCTs with available data, all of them had primary outcomes that were fully reproduced. However, discrepancies or inaccuracies that were not associated with study conclusions were identified in 3 RCTs. These concerned the number of patients included in 1 RCT, the management of missing values in another RCT, and discrepant timing for the principal outcome declared in the study registration and reported in the third RCT.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that data sharing practices are rare in surgical journals despite the ICMJE policy and that most RCTs published in these journals lack transparency. The results of these studies may not be reproducible by external researchers.

Publication by association: how the COVID-19 pandemic has shown relationships between authors and editorial board members in the field of infectious diseases

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rush to scientific and political judgements on the merits of hydroxychloroquine was fuelled by dubious papers which may have been published because the authors were not independent from the practices of the journals in which they appeared. This example leads us to consider a new type of illegitimate publishing entity, 'self-promotion journals' which could be deployed to serve the instrumentalisation of productivity-based metrics, with a ripple effect on decisions about promotion, tenure and grant funding, but also on the quality of manuscripts that are disseminated to the medical community and form the foundation of evidence-based medicine.

Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency-a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports

BACKGROUND

Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.

METHODS

Two researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/mcw3t/.

Tivozanib in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review of the evidence and its dissemination in the scientific literature

Background

Tivozanib (Fotivda) is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was denied access to the US market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, it was granted approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma in adults. Given the conflicting decisions from these regulatory agencies, the objectives of the following study are (i) to critically review the evidence supporting the approval of tivozanib; (ii) to analyse the dissemination of this evidence in the literature by way of a citation analysis.

Methods

Pivotal trials were searched by two independent reviewers using Medline, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Public Assessment Report. The risk of bias for each trial was then inductively assessed. Articles citing any of these trials were identified using Web of Sciences. Finally, the quality of the citations was evaluated by two independent reviewers according to standard data extraction methods.

Results

The search for primary evidence identified two pivotal studies: TIVO-1 upon which the FDA and the EMA decisions were based, and TIVO-3 which was conducted after the agencies’ decisions had been issued. The TIVO-1 trial presented several limitations that compromised causal inference, in relation to (i) design (absence of blinding, inappropriate comparator, and one-way crossover), (ii) poor internal consistency in the results for the primary endpoint, (iii) a discrepancy between a benefit observed for progression-free survival (HR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.64–0.99]) and the absence of difference for overall survival (HR: 1.25, 95% CI [0.95 – 1.62]). Our citation search protocol identified 229 articles that cited TIVO-1 in the 7 years following its publication, among which 151 (65.9%) citing articles discussing efficacy. Presence of spin was identified in 64 (42.4%) of these 151 citing articles, and 39 (25.8%) additional articles citing results without providing enough elements to interpret the TIVO-1 results.

Conclusion

EMA’s approval was based on a single pivotal trial presenting critical limitations, rendering the results from the trial potentially inconclusive. The broad dissemination of TIVO-1 results in the scientific literature may have been affected by spin or results were presented in an inadequate critical manner.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09475-7.

HOW DO THEY ADD UP? THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE PLACEBO AND TREATMENT EFFECT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Aim

The placebo effect and the specific effect are often thought to add up (additive model). Whether additivity holds can dramatically influence the external validity of a trial. This assumption of additivity was tested by Kleijnen et al in 1994 but the data produced since then have not been synthetized. In this review, we aimed to systematically review the literature to determine whether additivity held.

Methods

We searched Medline and PsychInfo up to 10 January 2019. Studies using the balanced placebo design (BPD), testing two different strengths of placebos, were included. The presence of interaction was evaluated by comparing each group in the BPD with analysis of variance or covariance.

Results

Thirty studies were included and the overall risk of bias was high: four found evidence of additivity and 16 studies found evidence of interaction (seven had evidence of positive additivity).

Conclusion

Evidence of additivity between placebo and specific features of treatments was rare in included studies. We suggest interventions for placebo‐sensitive ailments should be tested in trials designed to take interactions seriously once an exploratory RCTs has proven their efficacy with sufficient internal validity.

Sunshine on KOLs: assessment of the nature, extent and evolution of financial ties between the leaders of professional medical associations and the pharmaceutical industry in France from 2014 to 2019: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the financial relationships between key opinion leader (KOL) or non-KOL physicians and pharmaceutical and device companies in France.

DESIGN

Retrospective and descriptive study.

SETTING

All doctors practising in France, with a focus on 548 KOLs (board members of the professional medical associations that published guidelines in 2018-2019, identified on the associations' websites between 2018 and 2020). Ties were collected from the 'Transparency in Healthcare' database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and the value of gifts from 2014 to 2019, and of remunerations and contractual agreements from 2017 to 2019.

RESULTS

KOLs represented 0.24% of the total number of physicians in France. The total value of gifts declared in the French database for all physicians amounted to €818M (US$936M, £741M). At least one gift was declared for 83% of KOLs. KOLs' gifts represented 0.68% of the total number of gifts to physicians and 1.5% of the total value of gifts, with a mean of €3700 per capita per year.The total value of contractual agreements declared for all physicians amounted to €125M. Contractual agreements involving the KOLs represented 0.72% of the number of contractual agreements with physicians and 2.5% of the value of the agreements, with a mean of €1900 per capita per year.A total of €156M in remunerations were declared for all physicians. KOL remunerations represented 2.3% of the number of physician remunerations and 4.4% of the total value of the remunerations paid to physicians, with a mean of €4100 per capita per year.Almost all professional medical associations (99%) had at least one KOL in their board with a financial tie to the industry, but the amount varied widely among the associations.

CONCLUSION

Financial relationships between KOLs and the industry in France are extensive. KOLs have much more financial ties than non-KOL practitioners.

Overlapping network meta-analyses on psoriasis systemic treatments: an overview, quantity does not make quality

BACKGROUND

Network Meta-analyses (NMAs) have become successful in addressing gaps in the comparative effectiveness of systemic treatments in moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, their increasing number carries both a risk of overlap and reproducibility issues that can hamper clinical decision-making. In this overview, we aimed to assess redundancy across these NMAs and to describe their characteristics.

METHODS

We considered all systematic reviews with NMAs of randomized controlled trials that included adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and that evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of systemic treatments compared with placebo or with an active comparator. PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and the Evidence Update of the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology of the University of Nottingham were searched up to 25 February 2021. Our main outcome was the number per year of redundant NMAs and the extent of their overlap. We also described their features, especially, the confidence in the results of the reviews, the studies' funding and the presence of spin (a description that overstates efficacy and/or understates harm), reporting issues and methodological characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 47 redundant NMAs were included. Only 2/47 (4%) included all available treatments. Both efficacy and safety were evaluated in 14/47 (30%) NMAs and both short and long-term evaluations were assessed in 5/47 (11 %). Confidence in the results was critically low for 39/47 (83%) NMAs and only 10/47 (23 %) registered a protocol. 26/47 NMAs (55%) received pharmaceutical funding. CROs were involved in 19/47 (40%) NMAs. Reporting was poor across most of the NMAs' abstracts and spin was present in all of the abstracts. Almost half of the NMA failed to consider important limitations such as heterogeneity (32%) or consistency (66%).

DISCUSSION

In addition to a duplication of efforts, our overview showed heterogeneous methods and poor confidence in the results in a majority of the included NMAs, further distorted by reporting issues and spin. Clinicians need to interpret NMAs with caution when looking for the most reliable and comprehensive evidence.

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing: Ripe for improvement

Florian Naudet and co-authors discuss strengthening requirements for sharing clinical trial data.

Characteristics of available studies and dissemination of research using major clinical data sharing platforms

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Over the past decade, numerous data sharing platforms have been launched, providing access to de-identified individual patient-level data and supporting documentation. We evaluated the characteristics of prominent clinical data sharing platforms, including types of studies listed as available for request, data requests received, and rates of dissemination of research findings from data requests.

METHODS

We reviewed publicly available information listed on the websites of six prominent clinical data sharing platforms: Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center, ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, Project Data Sphere, Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivli, and the Yale Open Data Access Project. We recorded key platform characteristics, including listed studies and available supporting documentation, information on the number and status of data requests, and rates of dissemination of research findings from data requests (i.e. publications in a peer-reviewed journals, preprints, conference abstracts, or results reported on the platform's website).

RESULTS

The number of clinical studies listed as available for request varied among five data sharing platforms: Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (n = 219), ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (n = 2,897), Project Data Sphere (n = 154), Vivli (n = 5426), and the Yale Open Data Access Project (n = 395); Supporting Open Access to Researchers did not provide a list of Bristol Myers Squibb studies available for request. Individual patient-level data were nearly always reported as being available for request, as opposed to only Clinical Study Reports (Biological Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center = 211/219 (96.3%); ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 2884/2897 (99.6%); Project Data Sphere = 154/154 (100.0%); and the Yale Open Data Access Project = 355/395 (89.9%)); Vivli did not provide downloadable study metadata. Of 1201 data requests listed on ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivli, and the Yale Open Data Access Project platforms, 586 requests (48.8%) were approved (i.e. data access granted). The majority were for secondary analyses and/or developing/validating methods (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 262/313 (83.7%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb = 22/30 (73.3%); Vivli = 63/84 (75.0%); the Yale Open Data Access Project = 111/159 (69.8%)); four were for re-analyses or corroborations of previous research findings (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 3/313 (1.0%) and the Yale Open Data Access Project = 1/159 (0.6%)). Ninety-five (16.1%) approved data requests had results disseminated via peer-reviewed publications (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 61/313 (19.5%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb = 3/30 (10.0%); Vivli = 4/84 (4.8%); the Yale Open Data Access Project = 27/159 (17.0%)). Forty-two (6.8%) additional requests reported results through preprints, conference abstracts, or on the platform's website (ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com = 12/313 (3.8%); Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb = 3/30 (10.0%); Vivli = 2/84 (2.4%); Yale Open Data Access Project = 25/159 (15.7%)).

CONCLUSION

Across six prominent clinical data sharing platforms, information on studies and request metrics varied in availability and format. Most data requests focused on secondary analyses and approximately one-quarter of all approved requests publicly disseminated their results. To further promote the use of shared clinical data, platforms should increase transparency, consistently clarify the availability of the listed studies and supporting documentation, and ensure that research findings from data requests are disseminated.

Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

We searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.

CHARTING METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.

RESULTS

93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.

An open science pathway for drug marketing authorization-Registered drug approval

Florian Naudet and co-authors propose a pathway involving registered criteria for evaluation and approval of new drugs.

Social media attention and citations of published outputs from re-use of clinical trial data: a matched comparison with articles published in the same journals

BACKGROUND

Data-sharing policies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should have an evaluation component. The main objective of this case-control study was to assess the impact of published re-uses of RCT data in terms of media attention (Altmetric) and citation rates.

METHODS

Re-uses of RCT data published up to December 2019 (cases) were searched for by two reviewers on 3 repositories (CSDR, YODA project, and Vivli) and matched to control papers published in the same journal. The Altmetric Attention Score (primary outcome), components of this score (e.g. mention of policy sources, media attention) and the total number of citations were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

89 re-uses were identified: 48 (53.9%) secondary analyses, 34 (38.2%) meta-analyses, 4 (4.5%) methodological analyses and 3 (3.4%) re-analyses. The median (interquartile range) Altmetric Attention Scores were 5.9 (1.3-22.2) for re-use and 2.8 (0.3-12.3) for controls (p = 0.14). No statistical difference was found on any of the components of in the Altmetric Attention Score. The median (interquartile range) numbers of citations were 3 (1-8) for reuses and 4 (1 - 11.5) for controls (p = 0.30). Only 6/89 re-uses (6.7%) were cited in a policy source.

CONCLUSIONS

Using all available re-uses of RCT data to date from major data repositories, we were not able to demonstrate that re-uses attracted more attention than a matched sample of studies published in the same journals. Small average differences are still possible, as the sample size was limited. However matching choices have some limitations so results should be interpreted very cautiously. Also, citations by policy sources for re-uses were rare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: osf.io/fp62e.

Clinical trials during pandemics and beyond: time for a more efficient pharmacological strategy

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, clinical trials on antiviral or symptomatic drugs have been conducted very rapidly even for drugs with a poor pharmacological rationale for efficacy on SARS-CoV-2. Despite lacking basic pharmacological information, most of these clinical trials were also extremely redundant. Applying simple rules, (such as identifying a mechanistic rationale, confirming the ability to reach exposure targets at therapeutic dosage and ensuring tests show drug efficacy in appropriate in vitro and animal models before entering clinical trials) might have saved considerable amounts of time and money, and might have avoided useless research. Moreover, combining these simple rules with the implementation of a relevant policy at both an international and a national level, by limiting studies with a poor methodological/scientific approach and aggregating studies with similar design into single clinical trials, is potentially a far more-efficient strategy.

French Validation of the Alcohol Urge Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties and Relationship with Alcohol Dependence and Drinking Behavior

AIM

To validate a French translation of the Alcohol Urge Questionnaire (AUQ) that measures craving in patients with alcohol dependence.

METHOD

All patients aged > 18 years who were hospitalized for alcohol detoxification from February to May 2019 in the alcohol unit of the Rennes university hospital were eligible. A back-translated version of the AUQ was completed at admission. Patients were interviewed at the end of the 7-day detoxification program by a trained addiction psychiatrist (MS), using tablet computed-based questionnaires assessing state craving (visual analog scale), alcohol dependence severity, drinking behavior, psychological distress and physical/mental health. The same investigator assessed relapse 1 month after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 80 inpatients were recruited and completed questionnaires. The single factor structure of the French version of the AUQ was similar to the original questionnaire, and was supported by strong internal reliability and item-scale validity. The AUQ score correlated highly acute craving measure, but moderately scales assessing the severity of alcohol dependence, drinking behavior and mental health. Relapse 1 month after discharge was significantly related to AUQ score assessed either at baseline, or with better estimate at the end of the 7-day detoxification period.

CONCLUSION

The French version of the AUQ provides a reliable measure of phasic craving, which is best described as a context-dependent single-factor variable, related to but distinct from tonic craving, dependence severity and drinking behavior. The ease of administration makes the AUQ a useful tool for French-speaking patients with alcohol dependence.