Search

Background: Methodological limitations affect a significant number of oncology and haematology trials, raising concerns about the applicability of their results. For example, a suboptimal control arm or limited access to best care upon progression may skew the trial results toward a benefit in the experimental arm. Beyond the fact that such limitations do not prevent drugs reaching the market, other assessment tools, such as those developed by professional societies-ESMO-MCBS and ASCO Value Framework-do not integrate these important shortcomings., Methods: We propose creating a novel framework with the scope of assessing registration cancer clinical trials in haematology and oncology (randomized or single arm)-that is trials leading to a marketing authorization. The main steps of the methods are (1) assembling a scientific board; (2) defining the scope, goal and methods through pre-specified, pre-registered and protocolized methodology; (3) preregistration of the protocol; (4) conducting a scoping review of limitations and biases affecting oncology trials and assessing existing scores or methods; (5) developing a list of features to be included and assessed within the framework; (6) assessing each feature through a questionnaire sent to highly cited haematologists and oncologists involved in clinical trials; and (7) finalizing the first version of framework., Results: Not applicable., Conclusions: Our proposal emerged in response to the lack of consideration for key limitations in current trial assessments. The goal is to create a framework specifically designed to assess single trials leading to marketing authorization in the field of oncology and haematogy., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Clinical Investigation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.)

Objectives: To evaluate whether there is evidence of efficacy of the most commonly used medications in their primary indications., Study Design and Setting: This scoping review was executed using the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases up to May 2023. The 10 most prescribed medications in England, France, and the United States were identified using country-specific public databases. Up to 3 common indications in primary care were defined for each medication, based on a survey of general practitioners. The outcomes were determined by the authors to be patient-important outcomes, with placebo as the comparator. Two investigators independently conducted searches, following a predefined algorithm, to identify randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of these medications for each indication. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS or ROB 2.0 tools., Results: We identified 21 drugs, covering 56 indications and 114 outcomes. Sixty-seven percent of the evaluated medications demonstrated efficacy for at least one outcome in at least one of the sought indications. Overall, evidence of efficacy was found for 48% of the indications. There was no study evaluating the efficacy of amoxicillin and salbutamol. For other drugs such as phloroglucinol or cholecalciferol, available studies suggested an absence of efficacy in the most common indications., Conclusion: This study underscores the lack of data regarding the level of evidence for the most prescribed medications. Limitations include the choice of outcomes, and the understanding that the absence of evidence is not synonymous with the absence of efficacy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that FN received funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR-17-CE36-0010), the French ministry of health, and the French ministry of research. He is a work package leader in the OSIRIS project (Open Science to Increase Reproducibility in Science). The OSIRIS project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under the grant agreement No. 101094725. He is a work package leader for the doctoral network MSCA-DN SHARE-CTD funded by the EU. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Objectives: To explore the association between industry funding and network meta-analyses' (NMAs) conclusion, and the use in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) of NMAs., Study Design and Setting: This was an overview of NMAs and CPGs. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and several guideline databases up to February 18th 2023. We included CPGs from the last 5 years and NMAs of randomized controlled trials that evaluated targeted therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Data extraction and outcome assessments were done in duplicate by independent authors., Results: We included 216 NMAs and 99 CPGs. 31% (67/216) were industry-funded. The proportion of industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as being best was 44% (25/57) compared to 26% (30/116) for nonindustry-funded (OR = 2.24 [1.15-4.39]; aOR = 1.76 [0.81-3.81]). The abstract's conclusion of 39/67 (58%) industry-funded and 69/149 (46%) nonindustry-funded NMAs were considered unsupported by the results (OR = 1.61 [0.90-2.89]; aOR = 1.40 [0.71-2.78]). All industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as best cited their own sponsored drug. 59/99 (60%) CPGs included at least one NMA, with 23/59 (39%) of them citing industry-funded NMAs., Conclusions: We did not find evidence that industry-funded NMAs were more likely to have unsupported conclusions or to cite only one treatment as being best in their conclusions compared to non-industry-funded NMAs. However, almost all industry-funded NMAs favored their own treatments. Even though 40% of the CPGs did not rely on NMA, over a third of those who did used industry-funded NMAs. Limitations include the possible misclassification due to undisclosed funding and potential confounders that have not been accounted for., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Robin Guelimi reports financial support was provided by Public Assistance Hospitals Paris. and the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science. LLC, ES, and SA are co-authors of this work and authors of several studies that are included in the submitted overview. L.L.C., E.S., and S.A. are authors of several studies that are included in this overview. L.L.C. took part in the selection process, but none of them were involved in the extraction of data or in the assessment of the quality of a work they took a part in. L.L.C. and E.S. received a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC-N AOM22145). L.L.C. is the co-ordinating editor of the Cochrane Skin. F.N. received funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR-17-CE36-0010), the French ministry of health and the French ministry of research. He is a work package leader in the OSIRIS project (Open Science to Increase Reproducibility in Science). The OSIRIS project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No. 101094725. He is a work package leader for the doctoral network MSCA-DN SHARE-CTD (HORIZON-MSCA-2022-DN-01 101120360) funded by the EU. YZZN received a grant from the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308). R.G., A.M., T.B., and G.P. had no conflict of interest to declare. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: CV is a PhD student in the OSIRIS (Open Science to Increase Reproducibility in Science) project. The OSIRIS project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under the grant agreement number 101094725. SH has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe programme, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) and the LMUExcellent. CP received funding from NIH (NIEHS R01ES0324702 and NIA RF1AG074372). NJD has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe programme, also via the OSIRIS project, the Naji Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Fetzer Franklin Memorial Fund, and has been employed on grants from the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Elsevier and the Good Thinking Society in the last 5 years. BT is compensated for consulting with Seed Health and Enzymetrics Biosciences on microbiome study design. FN received funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR-17-CE36-0010), the French Ministry of Health and the French Ministry of Research. He is a work package leader in the OSIRIS project. He is a work package leader for the doctoral network MSCA-DN SHARE-CTD (HORIZON-MSCA-2022-DN-01 101120360), funded by the EU. The work of JPAI has been supported by an unrestricted gift from Sue and Bob O’Donnell to Stanford University.

Background: Many interventions, especially those linked to open science, have been proposed to improve reproducibility in science. To what extent these propositions are based on scientific evidence from empirical evaluations is not clear., Aims: The primary objective is to identify Open Science interventions that have been formally investigated regarding their influence on reproducibility and replicability. A secondary objective is to list any facilitators or barriers reported and to identify gaps in the evidence., Methods: We will search broadly by using electronic bibliographic databases, broad internet search, and contacting experts in the field of reproducibility, replicability, and open science. Any study investigating interventions for their influence on the reproducibility and replicability of research will be selected, including those studies additionally investigating drivers and barriers to the implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Studies will first be selected by title and abstract (if available) and then by reading the full text by at least two independent reviewers. We will analyze existing scientific evidence using scoping review and evidence gap mapping methodologies., Results: The results will be presented in interactive evidence maps, summarized in a narrative synthesis, and serve as input for subsequent research., Review Registration: This protocol has been pre-registered on OSF under doi https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D65YS., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Dudda LA et al.)

Background: Pain is a non-motor symptom that impairs quality of life in Parkinson's patients. Pathological nociceptive hypersensitivity in patients could be due to changes in the processing of somatosensory information at the level of the basal ganglia, including the subthalamic nucleus (STN), but the underlying mechanisms are not yet defined. Here, we investigated the interaction between the STN and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord (DHSC), by first examining the nature of STN neurons that respond to peripheral nociceptive stimulation and the nature of their responses under normal and pathological conditions. Next, we studied the consequences of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the STN on the electrical activity of DHSC neurons. Then, we investigated whether the therapeutic effect of STN-DBS would be mediated by the brainstem descending pathway involving the rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM). Finally, to better understand how the STN modulates allodynia, we used Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs) expressed in the STN., Methods: The study was carried out on the 6-OHDA rodent model of Parkinson's disease, obtained by stereotactic injection of the neurotoxin into the medial forebrain bundle of rats and mice. In these animals, we used motor and nociceptive behavioral tests, in vivo electrophysiology of STN and wide dynamic range (WDR) DHSC neurons in response to peripheral stimulation, deep brain stimulation of the STN and the selective DREADD approach. Vglut2-ires-cre mice were used to specifically target and inhibit STN glutamatergic neurons., Results: STN neurons are able to detect nociceptive stimuli, encode their intensity and generate windup-like plasticity, like WDR neurons in the DHSC. These phenomena are impaired in dopamine-depleted animals, as the intensity response is altered in both spinal and subthalamic neurons. Furthermore, As with L-Dopa, STN-DBS in rats ameliorated 6-OHDA-induced allodynia, and this effect is mediated by descending brainstem projections leading to normalization of nociceptive integration in DHSC neurons. Furthermore, this therapeutic effect was reproduced by selective inhibition of STN glutamatergic neurons in Vglut2-ires-cre mice., Conclusion: Our study highlights the centrality of the STN in nociceptive circuits, its interaction with the DHSC and its key involvement in pain sensation in Parkinson's disease. Furthermore, our results provide for the first-time evidence that subthalamic DBS produces analgesia by normalizing the responses of spinal WDR neurons via descending brainstem pathways. These effects are due to direct inhibition, rather than activation of glutamatergic neurons in the STN or passage fibers, as shown in the DREADDs experiment., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members towards one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but non-financial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analysing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated towards COVID-19 elimination (zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases towards advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: DC reports an HIV grant from Janssen (2019-2020), personal fees from Gilead (2020) and Pfizer (2022) for lectures outside the submitted work. RT has been the coordinator of the IMI2 EBOVAC2 project in collaboration with Janssen (2014-2021). Other authors have no competing interests to disclose.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have the following interests to declare: FN received funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR-17-CE36-0010), the French Ministry of Health and the French Ministry of Research. He is a work package leader in the OSIRIS project (Open Science to Increase Reproducibility in Science), which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No. 101094725. He is a work package leader for the doctoral network MSCA-DN SHARE-CTD (HORIZON-MSCA-2022-DN-01 101120360), funded by the EU. CJP received funding from National Institutes for Health (NIEHS R01ES0324702 and NIA RF1AG074372). NJD has received funding from the Horizon Europe programme, the OSIRIS project, the Naji Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Fetzer Franklin Memorial Fund and has been employed on grants from the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Elsevier, and the Good Thinking Society in the past five years. SH has received funding from Horizon Europe, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, and from LMUExcellent.