Search

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

Background: Authors of systematic reviews have difficulty obtaining unpublished data for their reviews. This project aimed to provide an in-depth description of the experiences of authors in searching for and gaining access to unpublished data for their systematic reviews, and to give guidance on best practices for identifying, obtaining and using unpublished data., Methods: This is a qualitative study analyzing in-depth interviews with authors of systematic reviews who have published Cochrane reviews or published systematic reviews outside of The Cochrane Library. We included participants who 1) were the first or senior author of a published systematic review of a drug intervention, 2) had expertise in conducting systematic reviews, searching for data, and assessing methodological biases, and 3) were able to participate in an interview in English. We used non-random sampling techniques to identify potential participants. Eighteen Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 agreed to be interviewed (89% response rate). Twenty-four non-Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 were interviewed (67% response rate)., Results: Respondents had different understandings of what was meant by unpublished data, including specific outcomes and methodological details. Contacting study authors was the most common method used to obtain unpublished data and the value of regulatory agencies as a data source was underappreciated. Using the data obtained was time consuming and labor intensive. Respondents described the collaboration with other colleagues and/or students required to organize, manage and use the data in their reviews, generally developing and using templates, spreadsheets and computer programs for data extraction and analysis. Respondents had a shared belief that data should be accessible but some had concerns about sharing their own data. Respondents believed that obtaining unpublished data for reviews has important public health implications. There was widespread support for government intervention to ensure open access to trial data., Conclusions: Respondents uniformly agreed that the benefit of identifying unpublished data was worth the effort and was necessary to identify the true harms and benefits of drugs. Recent actions by government, such as increased availability of trial data from the European Medicines Agency, may make it easier to acquire critical drug trial data.

Objective: To describe the experiences of authors of Cochrane reviews in searching for, getting access to, and using unpublished data., Design: Cross sectional study., Setting: Cochrane reviews., Participants: 2184 corresponding authors of Cochrane reviews as of May 2012., Main Outcome Measure: Frequencies of responses to open ended and closed questions in an online survey., Results: Of 5915 authors contacted by email, 2184 replied (36.9% response rate). Of those, 1656 (75.8%) had searched for unpublished data. In 913 cases (55.1% of 1656), new data were obtained and we received details about these data for 794 data sources. The most common data source was "trialists/investigators," accounting for 73.9% (n=587) of the 794 data sources. Most of the data were used in the review (82.0%, 651/794) and in 53.4% (424/794) of cases data were provided in less than a month. Summary data were most common, provided by 50.8% (403/794) of the data sources, whereas 20.5% (163/794) provided individual patient data. In only 6.3% (50/794) of cases were data reported to have been obtained from the manufacturers, and this group waited longer and had to make more contacts to get the data. The data from manufacturers were less likely to be for individual patients and less likely to be used in the review. Data from regulatory agencies accounted for 3.0% (24/794) of the obtained data., Conclusions: Most authors of Cochrane reviews who searched for unpublished data received useful information, primarily from trialists. Our response rate was low and the authors who did not respond were probably less likely to have searched for unpublished data. Manufacturers and regulatory agencies were uncommon sources of unpublished data.

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials., (Copyright © 2010 Moher et al/Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials., (Copyright (c) 2010 Moher et al. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Objective: To compare the reporting on blinding in protocols and articles describing randomized controlled trials., Study Design and Setting: We studied 73 protocols of trials approved by the scientific/ethical committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, 1994 and 1995, and their corresponding publications., Results: Three out of 73 trials (4%) reported blinding in the protocol that contradicted that in the publication (e.g., "open" vs. "double blind"). The proportion of "double-blind" trials with a clear description of the blinding of participants increased from 11 out of 58 (19%) when based on publications alone to 39 (67%) when adding the information in the protocol. The similar proportions for the blinding of health care providers were 2 (3%) and 22 (38%); and for the blinding of data collectors, they were 8 (14%) and 14 (24%). In 52 of 58 publications (90%), it was unclear whether all patients, health care providers, and data collectors had been blinded. In 4 of the 52 trials (7%), the protocols clarified that all three key trial persons had been blinded., Conclusions: The reporting on blinding in both trial protocols and publications is often inadequate. We suggest developing international guidelines for the reporting of trial protocols and public access to protocols.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Objective: To evaluate how often sample size calculations and methods of statistical analysis are pre-specified or changed in randomised trials., Design: Retrospective cohort study. Data source Protocols and journal publications of published randomised parallel group trials initially approved in 1994-5 by the scientific-ethics committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark (n=70)., Main Outcome Measure: Proportion of protocols and publications that did not provide key information about sample size calculations and statistical methods; proportion of trials with discrepancies between information presented in the protocol and the publication., Results: Only 11/62 trials described existing sample size calculations fully and consistently in both the protocol and the publication. The method of handling protocol deviations was described in 37 protocols and 43 publications. The method of handling missing data was described in 16 protocols and 49 publications. 39/49 protocols and 42/43 publications reported the statistical test used to analyse primary outcome measures. Unacknowledged discrepancies between protocols and publications were found for sample size calculations (18/34 trials), methods of handling protocol deviations (19/43) and missing data (39/49), primary outcome analyses (25/42), subgroup analyses (25/25), and adjusted analyses (23/28). Interim analyses were described in 13 protocols but mentioned in only five corresponding publications., Conclusion: When reported in publications, sample size calculations and statistical methods were often explicitly discrepant with the protocol or not pre-specified. Such amendments were rarely acknowledged in the trial publication. The reliability of trial reports cannot be assessed without having access to the full protocols.

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed "Explanation and Elaboration" document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

In 22 of 44 industry-initiated clinical trial protocols from 1994-95, it was noted that the sponsor either owned the data or needed to approve the manuscript; another 18 protocols had other constraints. Furthermore, in 16 trials, the sponsor had access to accumulating data, and in an additional 16 trials the sponsor could stop the trial at any time, for any reason. These facts were not noted in any of the trial reports. We found similar constraints on publication rights in 44 protocols from 2004. This tight sponsor control over industry-initiated trials should be changed.

In response to overwhelming evidence and the consequences of poor-quality reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), many medical journals and editorial groups have now endorsed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement, a 22-item checklist and flow diagram. Because CONSORT primarily aimed at improving the quality of reporting of efficacy, only 1 checklist item specifically addressed the reporting of safety. Considerable evidence suggests that reporting of harms-related data from RCTs also needs improvement. Members of the CONSORT Group, including journal editors and scientists, met in Montebello, Quebec, Canada, in May 2003 to address this problem. The result is the following document: the standard CONSORT checklist with 10 new recommendations about reporting harms-related issues, accompanying explanation, and examples to highlight specific aspects of proper reporting. We hope that this document, in conjunction with other CONSORT-related materials (http://www.consort-statement.org), will help authors improve their reporting of harms-related data from RCTs. Better reporting will help readers critically appraise and interpret trial results. Journals can support this goal by revising Instructions to Authors so that they refer authors to this document.

Context: To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute., Methods: Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors., Results: One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%)., Conclusions: A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.

Copyright of Medici Oggi is the property of Springer Healthcare Italia Srl and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Bias in industry-sponsored trials is common and the interpretation of the results can be particularly distorted in favour of the sponsor's product. We investigated sponsors' involvement in the conduct and reporting of industry-sponsored trials. Methods: We included all industry-sponsored trials published in The Lancet in 2008 and 2009 and corresponding trial protocols provided by The Lancet. For each protocol and publication, we extracted information on trial conduct and reporting. Results: We identified 169 publications of randomised trials and included 69 (41%) that were industry-sponsored, and 12 (7%) industry-funded but seemingly independently conducted as a subsample. Entry of data into the study database was done independently by academic authors without the involvement of the sponsor or a contract research organisation in one of the 69 trials. Two trials had independent data analysis and one independent reporting of results. In 11 of the trials, there was a discrepancy between the information in the protocols and papers concerning who analysed the data. In four of the 12 seemingly independent trials, the protocol described sponsors' involvement in writing the report while the published paper explicitly stated that the sponsor was not involved. Conclusions: The sponsors are usually involved in the analysis and reporting of results in industry-sponsored trials, but their exact role is not always clear from the published papers. Journals should require more transparent reporting of the sponsors' role in crucial elements such as data processing, statistical analysis and writing of the manuscript and should consider requiring access to trial protocols, independent data analysis and submission of the raw data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports. Objective To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials. Design Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes. Main Outcome Measures Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles. Results One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors argue that journals should stop publishing research funded by the drug industry. They point out that the "BMJ" and its sibling journals have stopped publishing tobacco industry-funded research mainly because of alleged corrupted research to advance their commercial aims despite the harm they do. They claim that these arguments apply to drug industry-funded research, noting that prescribed drugs are the third leading cause of death partly due to flawed evidence published in journals.