Search

Background Randomised clinical trials are pivotal in guiding clinical practice. Trials with surrogate outcomes and industry sponsorship might be less reliable than those with hard outcomes and independent sponsorship. The types of interventions evaluated in randomised clinical trials might not reflect the diversity of those employed in clinical practice. Methods We assessed the types of primary outcome, types of intervention and sponsorship of 360 randomised clinical trials evaluating 416 interventions, published in seven major general medical journals and 10 speciality medical journals in five clinical disciplines. Results Primary outcomes were surrogate in 223/360 (62%) trials. Neither type of journal nor source of sponsorship was associated with type of primary outcome. Among the interventions evaluated, 233/416 (56%) were drugs, 17/416 (4%) devices and 49/416 (12%) procedures. The majority of trials were non-industry funded (220/360, 61%). Trials of drug interventions and those with industry sponsorship were more common in specialty than general journals (68% vs 48% and 55% vs 25%, respectively). Industry sponsorship was not associated with results for the primary outcome but was strongly associated with trials of drugs and devices. Within the groups of both general and speciality journals, there were wide ranges in the prevalence of industry funding (7–63% and 37–70%, respectively), but in all cases the prevalence of hard primary outcomes was

Background Spin in the reporting of randomized controlled trials, where authors report research in a way that potentially misrepresents results and mislead readers, has been demonstrated in the broader medical literature. We investigated spin in wound care trials with (a) no statistically significant result for the primary outcome and (b) no clearly specified primary outcome. Methods We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible studies were: Parallel-group RCTs of interventions for foot, leg or pressure ulcers published in 2004 to 2009 (inclusive) with either a clearly identified primary outcome for which there was a statistically non-significant result (Cohort A) or studies that had no clear primary outcome (Cohort B). We extracted general study details. For both Cohorts A and B we then assessed for the presence of spin. For Cohort A we used a pre-defined process to assess reports for spin. For Cohort B we aimed to assess spin by recording the number of positive treatment effect claims made. We also compared the number of statistically significant and non-significant results reported in the main text and the abstract looking specifically for spin in the form of selective outcome reporting. Results Of the 71 eligible studies, 28 were eligible for Cohort A; of these, 71% (20/28) contained spin. Cohort B contained 43 studies; of these, 86% (37/43) had abstracts that claimed a favorable treatment claim. Whilst 74% (32/43) of main text results in Cohort B included at least one statistically non-significant result, this was not reflected in the abstract where only 28% contained (12/43) at least one statistically non-significant result. Conclusions Spin is a frequent phenomenon in reports of RCTs of wound treatments. Studies without statistically significant results for the primary outcome used spin in 71% of cases. Furthermore, 33% (43/132) of reports of wound RCTs did not specify a primary outcome and there was evidence of spin and selective outcome reporting in the abstracts of these. Readers should be wary of only reading the abstracts of reports of RCTs of wound treatments since they are frequently misleading regarding treatment effects.

Introduction Despite intense interest in trial registration, there is a wide gap between theoretical postulates on trial registration and its implementation worldwide. Objective We aimed to evaluate trialists views about current international guidelines on trial registration, including the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) policies and the Ottawa Statement, as well as their intention to register any future clinical trials they conduct. Methods We identified all 40,158 PUBMED-indexed clinical trials published from May 2005 to May 2006 using an advanced search strategy. From a random sample of 500 confirmed clinical trials, corresponding authors with e-mail contact addresses were surveyed. Results A total of 275 (60%) questionnaires from 45 countries were completed. 31% of the respondents had received only nonindustry funding during the past ten years, while 5% and 61% had received only industry or mixed funding respectively. Approximately two third of participants supported registration of all 20 WHO Data Set items, and endorsed the Ottawa Statement part 1 and part 2. Delayed public disclosure of some essential data in instances where they may be considered sensitive for competitive commercial reasons was supported by 30% of the participants, whereas immediate disclosure was supported by 53%. Only 21% of participants had registered all of their ongoing trials since 2005, while 47% stated that they would provide the 20 WHO Data Set items to a publicly accessible register for all their future clinical trials; a significantly higher proportion of participants who received only nonindustry funding (62%) was found among those who would always provide the 20 WHO items for future trials, compared to 42% of participants who received mixed or only industry funding. Among those who were undecided about endorsing registration. One third of participants expressed a lack of sufficient knowledge as the primary reason. Conclusion Although disagreement was apparent on certain issues, our findings illustrate that trial registration is gradually becoming part of the current research paradigm internationally. Our results also suggest that researchers require more knowledge to inform their decision to comply with the International standards at this early stage of voluntary trial registration.

Background Critical commentaries suggest that wound care randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often poorly reported with many methodological flaws. Furthermore, interventions in chronic wounds, rather than being drugs, are often medical devices for which there are no requirements for RCTs to bring products to market. RCTs in wounds trials therefore potentially represent a form of marketing. This study presents a methodological overview of chronic wound trials published between 2004 and 2011 and investigates the influence of industry funding on methodological quality. Methods A systematic search for RCTs for the treatment of chronic wounds published in the English language between 2004 and 2011 (inclusive) in the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials was carried out. Data were extracted on aspects of trial design, conduct and quality including sample size, duration of follow-up, specification of a primary outcome, use of surrogate outcomes, and risks of bias. In addition, the prevalence of industry funding was assessed and its influence on the above aspects of trial design, conduct and quality was assessed. Results A total of 167 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. We found chronic wound trials often have short durations of follow-up (median 12 weeks), small sample sizes (median 63), fail to define a primary outcome in 41% of cases, and those that do define a primary outcome, use surrogate measures of healing in 40% of cases. Only 40% of trials used appropriate methods of randomisation, 25% concealed allocation and 34% blinded outcome assessors. Of the included trials, 41% were wholly or partially funded by industry, 33% declared non-commercial funding and 26% did not report a funding source. Industry funding was not statistically significantly associated with any measure of methodological quality, though this analysis was probably underpowered. Conclusions This overview confirms concerns raised about the methodological quality of RCTs in wound care and illustrates that greater efforts must be made to follow international standards for conducting and reporting RCTs. There is currently minimal evidence of an influence of industry funding on methodological quality although analyses had limited power and funding source was not reported for a quarter of studies.