Search

The present review gives an overview of systematic reviews published in peer reviewed Journals analysing quality of reporting in oncology studies. PUBMED and Cochrane library were searched to identify systematic reviews assessing quality of reporting for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBS). Recommendations and primary endpoints used to assess the quality of reporting were described. Intrinsic quality of reporting was analyzed using an Overall Quality Score for literature Reviews (OQSR). Main evaluation themes were overall quality of reporting (20/58) and reporting of Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) in RCTs (7/58). Reporting recommendations used were not detailed in 56.9% of reviews. Insufficient reporting for the methodological description (randomization, blinding details, and allocation concealment) and the rationale for using specific measure of HRQOL were highlighted. OQSR was significantly higher for reviews published between 2010 and 2014 (after the PRISMA Publication), as compared to those published between 1996–2009 (median OQSR 10 (10–11) versus median OQSR 9 (6–10) respectively, p = 0.0053). Intrinsic quality of reporting is satisfactory and has been improved in the last years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spin, the misrepresentation of research findings, in clinical trial abstract has been shown to influence how oncologist rate a drug's efficacy. We searched PubMed for clinical trials published in ten key journals in 2017. Our primary objectives were to assess the frequency and manifestations of spin in the abstracts of those clinical trials that measured both overall survival and at least one surrogate efficacy endpoints. 124 trials were included for analysis. We found evidence of spin in 46 of 124 (37.1%, 95% CI 29.1%–45.9%) trial abstracts. Spin in the abstract results was most often due to authors emphasizing a statistically significant subgroup analysis (n = 6). Spin in the abstract conclusions was most often due to authors relying on a statistically significant surrogate endpoint to highlight the bioefficacy of the intervention (n = 17). Spin is prevalent in the abstracts of oncology clinical trials that measure OS and a surrogate endpoint. The conclusion sections of abstracts were most prone to contain spin. When OS was the primary endpoint, spin was primarily used to distract from the nonsignificant OS data. To mitigate unintentional hype for cancer therapies, we recommend authors structure their conclusions around patient-important outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]