Search

Outputs from living evidence syntheses projects have been used widely during the pandemic by guideline developers to form evidence-based recommendations. However, the needs of different stakeholders cannot be accommodated by solely providing pre-defined non amendable numerical summaries. Stakeholders also need to understand the data and perform their own exploratory analyses. This requires resources, time, statistical expertise, software knowledge as well as relevant clinical expertise to avoid spurious conclusions. To assist them, we created the "metaCOVID" application which, based on automation processes, facilitates the fast exploration of the data and the conduct of sub-analyses tailored to end-users needs. "metaCOVID" has been created in R and is freely available as an R-Shiny application. Based on the COVID-NMA platform (https://covid-nma.com/) the application conducts living meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials related to COVID-19 treatments and vaccines for several outcomes. Several options are available for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The results are presented in downloadable forest plots. We illustrate "metaCOVID" through three examples involving well-known treatments and vaccines for COVID-19. The application is freely available from https://covid-nma.com/metacovid/.

Background: Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. Methods: The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article. Results: The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint–article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73–187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71–464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint–article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found. Conclusions: Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outputs from living evidence syntheses projects have been used widely during the pandemic by guideline developers to form evidence‐based recommendations. However, the needs of different stakeholders cannot be accommodated by solely providing pre‐defined non amendable numerical summaries. Stakeholders also need to understand the data and perform their own exploratory analyses. This requires resources, time, statistical expertise, software knowledge as well as relevant clinical expertise to avoid spurious conclusions. To assist them, we created the metaCOVID application which, based on automation processes, facilitates the fast exploration of the data and the conduct of sub‐analyses tailored to end‐users needs. metaCOVID has been created in R and is freely available as an R‐Shiny application. Based on the COVID‐NMA platform (https://covid-nma.com/) the application conducts living meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials related to COVID‐19 treatments and vaccines for several outcomes. Several options are available for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The results are presented in downloadable forest plots. We illustrate metaCOVID through three examples involving well‐known treatments and vaccines for COVID‐19. The application is freely available from https://covid-nma.com/metacovid/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) online hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND), is an online self-help program of hand exercises designed to improve hand function for people with scleroderma. The objective of this feasibility trial was to evaluate aspects of feasibility for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial of the SPIN-HAND program. Materials and Methods. The feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN cohort and utilized the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) design. In the cmRCT design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about trials conducted using the cohort. When trials were conducted in the cohort, participants randomized to the intervention were informed and consented to access the intervention. Participants randomized to control were not informed that they have not received an intervention. All participants eligible and randomized to participate in the trial were included in analyses on an intent-to-treat basis. Cohort participants with a Cochin Hand Function Scale score ≥ 3/90 and an interest in using an online hand-exercise intervention were randomized (1:1 ratio) to be offered as usual care plus the SPINHAND Program or usual care for 3 months. User satisfaction was assessed with semistructured interviews. Results. Of the 40 randomized participants, 24 were allocated to SPIN-HAND and 16 to usual care. Of 24 participants randomized to be offered SPIN-HAND, 15 (63%) consented to use the program. Usage of SPIN-HAND content among the 15 participants who consented to use the program was low; only five (33%) logged in more than twice. Participants found the content relevant and easy to understand (satisfaction rating 8.5/10, N = 6). Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly. The required technical support was minimal. Conclusions. Trial methodology functioned as designed, and the SPIN-HAND Program was feasibly delivered; however, the acceptance of the offer and use of program content among accepters were low. Adjustments to information provided to potential participants will be implemented in the full-scale SPIN-HAND trial to attempt to increase offer acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.Methods: First, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes.Results: We evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results.Conclusions: Our results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to evaluate to what extent the results of registered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are publicly available.Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and primary registries for RCTs assessing TACE for treating HCC, registered between January 2008 and August 2018, that had exceeded their completion date by more than 1 year. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for a publication as well as the registry for results. The main outcomes were the availability of results, and the time to the first availability of results (i.e., posted on the registry or published). Secondary outcomes were the proportion of results available at 12 and 36 months after completion.Results: Among 67 identified RCTs, including a total target number to 11,599 participants, 26 had publicly available results (39%; i.e., 42% of total target number of participants). Results of 25 RCTs (37%) were published, with only 3 having results posted on the registry and 2 with both published and posted results. The median (Q1-Q3) time from completion to the first public availability of results was 18 months (11-29). The cumulative percentages of RCTs with results available were 10% (95% CI, 3-17%) and 29% (95% CI, 17-39%) at 12 and 36 months, respectively, after completion.Conclusions: Despite the ethical commitments and societal expectations for disclosure of results, the availability of results of RCTs on TACE for treating HCC is very limited.Key Points: • Underreporting of trial results is a major cause of wasted medical research since inaccessible research results fail to help both patients and clinicians. • Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the most common treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and has called for considerable research efforts. • Yet, almost two-thirds of randomized controlled trials assessing TACE for treating HCC did not yield any public results, either on the registry platform or in scientific journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To assess the effects of the Nutri-Score label (relative to the Reference Intakes label or no label) on the nutritional quality of students' food purchases. Methods. A 3-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted in France in 2017; 2907 participants were randomized into 1 of the 3 study arms (Nutri-Score, Reference Intakes, no label) and invited to purchase groceries from an experimental Web-based supermarket. The main outcome was the overall nutritional quality of purchases, measured according to a modified version of the Food Standards Agency Nutrient Profiling System (FSAm-NPS/HCSP) score. Results. The mean (±SD) FSAm-NPS/HCSP score was lower in the Nutri-Score group (2.02 ±3.56) than in the Reference Intakes group (2.69 ±3.44), reflecting higher nutritional quality; however, there was no significant difference between the Nutri-Score and no-label (2.45 ±3.28) groups or between the Reference Intakes and no-label groups. Shopping cart content was lower in calories and saturated fatty acids and higher in fruits and vegetables in the Nutri-Score arm than in the other arms. Conclusions. The Nutri-Score label appeared to improve the nutritional composition of students' food purchases relative to the Reference Intakes label or no label. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incomplete and inadequate reporting is an avoidable waste that reduces the usefulness of research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline that aims to improve research transparency and reduce waste. In 2008, the CONSORT Group developed an extension to the original statement that addressed methodological issues specific to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments (NPTs), such as surgery, rehabilitation, or psychotherapy. This article describes an update of that extension and presents an extension for reporting abstracts of NPT trials. To develop these materials, the authors reviewed pertinent literature published up to July 2016; surveyed authors of NPT trials; and conducted a consensus meeting with editors, trialists, and methodologists. Changes to the CONSORT Statement extension for NPT trials include wording modifications to improve readers' understanding and the addition of 3 new items. These items address whether and how adherence of participants to interventions is assessed or enhanced, description of attempts to limit bias if blinding is not possible, and specification of the delay between randomization and initiation of the intervention. The CONSORT extension for abstracts of NPT trials includes 2 new items that were not specified in the original CONSORT Statement for abstracts. The first addresses reporting of eligibility criteria for centers where the intervention is performed and for care providers. The second addresses reporting of important changes to the intervention versus what was planned. Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the CONSORT extension for NPT trial abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications. Methods: We conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision. Results: A total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n = 166; control n = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n=94; n = 103). Over a third (39%; n = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n = 43; n = 50), pragmatic (n = 20; n = 16) and cluster (n=10; n=9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10). Conclusions: This study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the impact of a computer-assisted Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) on daily consumption of alcohol by patients with hazardous drinking disorder detected after systematic screening during their admission to an emergency department (ED).Design: Two-arm, parallel group, multicentre, randomized controlled trial with a centralised computer-generated randomization procedure.Setting: Four EDs in university hospitals located in the Paris area in France.Participants: Patients admitted in the ED for any reason, with hazardous drinking disorder detected after systematic screening (i.e., Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test score ≥5 for women and 8 for men OR self-reported alcohol consumption by week ≥7 drinks for women and 14 for men).Interventions: The experimental intervention was computer-assisted SBIRT and the comparator was a placebo-controlled intervention (i.e., a computer-assisted education program on nutrition). Interventions were administered in the ED and followed by phone reinforcements at 1 and 3 months.Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome was the mean number of alcohol drinks per day in the previous week, at 12 months. Results From May 2005 to February 2011, 286 patients were randomized to the computer-assisted SBIRT and 286 to the comparator intervention. The two groups did not differ in the primary outcome, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, -0.88 to 1.11).Conclusions: There was no additional benefit of the computer-assisted alcohol SBIRT as compared with the computer-assisted education program on nutrition among patients with hazardous drinking disorder detected by systematic screening during their admission to an ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications.Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications.Results: We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results.Conclusion: Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the impact of a standardized pre-operative telephone checklist on the rate of late cancellations of ambulatory surgery (AMBUPROG trial). Design: Multicenter, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial. Setting: 11 university hospital ambulatory surgery units in Paris, France. Participants: Patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery and able to be reached by telephone. Intervention: A 7-item checklist designed to prevent late cancellation, available in five languages and two versions (for children and adults), was administered between 7 and 3 days before the planned date of surgery, by an automated phone system or a research assistant. The control group received standard management alone. Main Outcome Measures: Rate of cancellation on the day of surgery or the day before. Results: The study population comprised 3900 patients enrolled between November 2012 and September 2013: 1950 patients were randomized to the checklist arm and 1950 patients to the control arm. The checklist was administered to 68.8% of patients in the intervention arm, 1002 by the automated phone system and 340 by a research assistant. The rate of late cancellation did not differ significantly between the checklist and control arms (109 (5.6%) vs. 113 (5.8%), adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.91 [0.65–1.29], (p = 0.57)). Checklist administration revealed that 355 patients (28.0%) had not undergone tests ordered by the surgeon or anesthetist, and that 254 patients (20.0%) still had questions concerning the fasting state. Conclusions: A standardized pre-operative telephone checklist did not avoid late cancellations of ambulatory surgery but enabled us to identify several frequent causes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods: We performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT.Results: Forty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes.Conclusion: Use of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research publications. However, it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. We aimed to identify and sort, according to their importance, all tasks that are expected from peer reviewers when evaluating a manuscript reporting the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and to determine which of these tasks are clearly requested by editors in their recommendations to peer reviewers. Methods: We identified the tasks expected of peer reviewers from 1) a systematic review of the published literature and 2) recommendations to peer reviewers for 171 journals (i.e., 10 journals with the highest impact factor for 14 different medical areas and all journals indexed in PubMed that published more than 15 RCTs over 3 months regardless of the medical area). Participants who had peer-reviewed at least one report of an RCT had to classify the importance of each task relative to other tasks using a Q-sort technique. Finally, we evaluated editors' recommendations to authors to determine which tasks were clearly requested by editors in their recommendations to peer reviewers. Results: The Q-sort survey was completed by 203 participants, 93 (46 %) with clinical expertise, 72 (36 %) with methodological/statistical expertise, 17 (8 %) with expertise in both areas, and 21 (10 %) with other expertise. The task rated most important by participants (evaluating the risk of bias) was clearly requested by only 5 % of editors. In contrast, the task most frequently requested by editors (provide recommendations for publication), was rated in the first tertile only by 21 % of all participants. Conclusions: The most important tasks for peer reviewers were not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors in their guidelines to reviewers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Under a conventional two-arm randomised trial design, participants are allocated to an intervention and participating health professionals are expected to deliver both interventions. However, health professionals often have differing levels of expertise in a skill-based interventions such as surgery or psychotherapy. An expertise-based approach to trial design, where health professionals only deliver an intervention in which they have expertise, has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this project was to systematically review the use of an expertise-based trial design in the medical literature. Methods: We carried out a comprehensive search of nine databases--AMED, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and PsycINFO--from 1966 to 2012 and performed citation searches using the ISI Citation Indexes and Scopus. Studies that used an expertise-based trial design were included. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports. Data were extracted and summarised on the study characteristics, general and expertise-specific study methodology, and conduct. Results: In total, 7476 titles and abstracts were identified, leading to 43 included studies (54 articles). The vast majority (88%) used a pure expertise-based design; three (7%) adopted a hybrid design, and two (5%) used a design that was unclear. Most studies compared substantially different interventions (79%). In many cases, key information relating to the expertise-based design was absent; only 12 (28%) reported criteria for delivering both interventions. Most studies recruited the target sample size or very close to it (median of 101, interquartile range of 94 to 118), although the target was reported for only 40% of studies. The proportion of participants who received the allocated intervention was high (92%, interquartile range of 82 to 99%). Conclusions: While use of an expertise-based trial design is growing, it remains uncommon. Reporting of study methodology and, particularly, expertise-related methodology was poor. Empirical evidence provided some support for purported benefits such as high levels of recruitment and compliance with allocation. An expertise-based trial design should be considered but its value seems context-specific, particularly when interventions differ substantially or interventions are typically delivered by different health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To allow an accurate evaluation of abstracts of systematic reviews, the PRISMA Statement recommends that the limitations of the evidence (e.g., risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision) should be described in the abstract. We aimed to evaluate the impact of adding such limitations sections on reader's interpretation. Method We performed a two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) using a sample of 30 abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating the effects of healthcare intervention with conclusions favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental treatments. Two formats of these abstracts were derived: one reported without and one with a standardized limitations section written according to the PRISMA statement for abstracts. The primary outcome was readers' confidence in the results of the systematic review as stated in the abstract assessed by a Likert scale from 0, not at all confident, to 10, very confident. In total, 300 participants (corresponding authors of RCT reports indexed in PubMed) were randomized by a web-based randomization procedure to interpret one abstract with a limitations section (n = 150) or without a limitations section (n = 150). Participants were blinded to the study hypothesis. Results Adding a limitations section did not modify readers' interpretation of findings in terms of confidence in the results (mean difference [95% confidence interval] 0.19 [-0.37-0.74], p = 0.50), confidence in the validity of the conclusions (0.07 [-0.49-0.62], p = 0.80), or benefit of the experimental intervention (0.12 [-0.42-0.44], p = 0.65). This study is limited because the participants were expert-readers and are not representative of all systematic review readers. Conclusion Adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews did not affect readers' interpretation of the abstract results. Other studies are needed to confirm the results and explore the impact of a limitations section on a less expert panel of participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the effectiveness of open peer review as a mechanism to improve the reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical journals. Design Retrospective before and after study. Setting BioMed Central series medical journals. Sample 93 primary reports of randomised trials published in BMC-series medical journals in 2012. Main outcome measures Changes to the reporting of methodological aspects of randomised trials in manuscripts after peer review, based on the CONSORT checklist, corresponding peer reviewer reports, the type of changes requested, and the extent to which authors adhered to these requests. Results Of the 93 trial reports, 38% (n=35) did not describe the method of random sequence generation, 54% (n=50) concealment of allocation sequence, 50% (n=46) whether the study was blinded, 34% (n=32) the sample size calculation, 35% (n=33) specification of primary and secondary outcomes, 55% (n=51) results for the primary outcome, and 90% (n=84) details of the trial protocol. The number of changes between manuscript versions was relatively small; most involved adding new information or altering existing information. Most changes requested by peer reviewers had a positive impact on the reporting of the final manuscript--for example, adding or clarifying randomisation and blinding (n=27), sample size (n=15), primary and secondary outcomes (n=16), results for primary or secondary outcomes (n=14), and toning down conclusions to reflect the results (n=27). Some changes requested by peer reviewers, however, had a negative impact, such as adding additional unplanned analyses (n=15). Conclusion Peer reviewers fail to detect important deficiencies in reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials. The number of these changes requested by peer reviewers was relatively small. Although most had a positive impact, some were inappropriate and could have a negative impact on reporting in the final publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain is a common complication in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and is associated with shorter survival. We evaluated the impact of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on pain in adults with CF. Methods: A pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted with three parallel arms: OMT (group A, 16 patients), sham OMT (sham treatment, group B, 8 patients) and no treatment (group C, 8 patients). Medical investigators and patients were double-blind to treatment for groups A and B, who received OMT or sham OMT monthly for 6 months. Pain was rated as a composite of its intensity and duration over the previous month. The evolution of chest/back pain after 6 months was compared between group A and groups B+C combined (control group). The evolution of cervical pain, headache and quality of life (QOL) were similarly evaluated. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups in the decrease of chest/back pain (difference = −2.20 IC95% [−4.81; 0.42], p = 0.098); also, group A did not differ from group B. However, chest/back pain decreased more in groups A (p = 0.002) and B (p = 0.006) than in group C. Cervical pain, headache and QOL scores did not differ between the treatment and control groups. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of evaluating the efficacy of OMT to treat the pain of patients with CF. The lack of difference between the group treated with OMT and the control group may be due to the small number of patients included in this trial, which also precludes any definitive conclusion about the greater decrease of pain in patients receiving OMT or sham OMT than in those with no intervention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01293019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed. Methods We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5. Results Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only. Conclusions We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The main reason to avoid trial of labor after cesarean delivery is the possibility of uterine rupture. Identifying women at risk is thus an important aim, for it would enable women at low risk to proceed with a secure planned vaginal birth.Objective: To evaluate the impact of proposing mode of delivery based on the ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness on a composite outcome of maternal-fetal mortality and morbidity, compared with usual management, among pregnant women with a previous cesarean delivery.Study Design: This multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial was conducted at 8 referral university hospitals with a neonatal intensive care unit and enrolled 2948 women at 36 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation with 1 previous low transverse cesarean delivery and no contraindication to trial of labor. Women in the study group had their lower uterine segment thickness measured by ultrasound. Those with measurements >3.5 mm, were encouraged to choose a planned vaginal delivery, and those with measurements ≤3.5 mm, were encouraged to choose a planned repeat cesarean delivery. This measurement was not taken in the control group; their mode of delivery was decided according to standard management. The primary outcome was a composite criterion comprising maternal mortality, uterine rupture, uterine dehiscence, hysterectomy, thromboembolic disease, transfusion, endometritis, perinatal death, or neonatal encephalopathy. Prespecified secondary outcomes were repeat cesarean deliveries, elective or after trial of labor.Results: The study group included 1472 women, and the control group included 1476 women. These groups were similar at baseline. The primary outcome occurred in 3.4% of the study group and 4.3% of the control group (relative risk, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.13: risk difference, -1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -2.4 to 0.5). The uterine rupture rate in the study group was 0.4% and in the control group 0.9% (relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-1.19). The planned cesarean delivery rate was 16.4% in the study group and 13.7% in the control group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.47), whereas the rates of cesarean delivery during labor were 25.1% and 25.0% (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.14) in the study and control groups, respectively.Conclusion: Ultrasound measurements of lower uterine segment thickness did not result in a statistically significant lower frequency of maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes than standard management. However, because this study was underpowered, further research should be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients' participation is crucial to the success of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, recruiting and retaining patients in trials remain a challenge.Objective: This study aims to describe patients' preferences for the organization of RCTs (visits on- site or remotely) and evaluate the potential impact of fulfilling preferences on their willingness to participate in a clinical trial.Methods: This was a vignette-based survey. Vignettes were case scenarios of real clinical trials assessing pharmacological treatments. These RCTs evaluated 6 prevalent chronic diseases (ie, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, asthma, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and endometriosis). Each vignette described (1) the RCT and characteristics of the treatment tested (ie, doses, administration routes) and (2) the trial procedures and different options (on-site or remotely) for how the trial was organized for informed consent, follow-up visits, and communication of results when the trial was completed. We recruited 628 participants from ComPaRe (www.compare.aphp.fr), a French e-cohort of patients with chronic diseases. The outcomes were the participants' preferences for the way the trial was organized (on-site or remotely) and their willingness to participate in the trial.Results: Of the 628 participants who answered the vignettes, 491 (78.2%) were female (median age 55 years), with different chronic diseases ranging from endometriosis in 59 of 491 (12%) patients to asthma in 133 of 628 (21.2%) patients. In addition, 38 (6.1%) participants wanted to provide informed consent and all trial visits on-site, 176 (28%) wished to participate in the trial entirely remotely, and 414 (65.9%) wanted to combine remote-based and hospital-based visits. Considering the trial as a whole, when the trial was organized in a way that the patients preferred, the median (Q1-Q3) likelihood of participation in the trial was 90% (80-100) versus 60% (30-80) if the trial followed the patients' nonpreferred model. Furthermore, 256 (40.8%) patients responded to open-ended questions expressing their experience with trial participation and visits to the hospital and providing suggestions for improvement. The patients emphasized the need to personalize the way a trial is organized according to each patient's needs and conditions.Conclusions: There was a significant diversity in the participants' preferences. Most participants preferred hybrid organization involving both on-site and remote visits. Participants were more likely to participate in a trial organized according to their preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Older adults are underrepresented in clinical research. To assess therapeutic efficacy in older patients, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) include older adults only. Objective: To compare treatment effects between RCTs including older adults only (elderly RCTs) and RCTs including all adults (adult RCTs) by a meta-epidemiological approach. Methods: All systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2011) were screened. Eligible studies were meta-analyses of binary outcomes of pharmacologic treatment including at least one elderly RCT and at least one adult RCT. For each meta-analysis, we compared summary odds ratios for elderly RCTs and adult RCTs by calculating a ratio of odds ratios (ROR). A summary ROR was estimated across all meta-analyses. Results: We selected 55 meta-analyses including 524 RCTs (17% elderly RCTs). The treatment effects differed beyond that expected by chance for 7 (13%) meta-analyses, showing more favourable treatment effects in elderly RCTs in 5 cases and in adult RCTs in 2 cases. The summary ROR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77–1.08, p = 0.28), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 51% and τ2 = 0.14). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses by type-of-age RCT (elderly RCTs vs RCTs excluding older adults and vs RCTs of mixed-age adults), type of outcome (mortality or other) and type of comparator (placebo or active drug) yielded similar results. Conclusions: The efficacy of pharmacologic treatments did not significantly differ, on average, between RCTs including older adults only and RCTs of all adults. However, clinically important discrepancies may occur and should be considered when generalizing evidence from all adults to older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple-arm randomized trials can be more complex in their design, data analysis, and result reporting than two-arm trials. We conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting of analyses in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multiple arms. Methods: The literature in the MEDLINE database was searched for reports of RCTs with multiple arms published in 2009 in the core clinical journals. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized extraction form. Results: In total, 298 reports were identified. Descriptions of the baseline characteristics and outcomes per group were missing in 45 reports (15.1%) and 48 reports (16.1%), respectively. More than half of the articles (n = 171, 57.4%) reported that a planned global test comparison was used (that is, assessment of the global differences between all groups), but 67 (39.2%) of these 171 articles did not report details of the planned analysis. Of the 116 articles reporting a global comparison test, 12 (10.3%) did not report the analysis as planned. In all, 60% of publications (n = 180) described planned pairwise test comparisons (that is, assessment of the difference between two groups), but 20 of these 180 articles (11.1%) did not report the pairwise test comparisons. Of the 204 articles reporting pairwise test comparisons, the comparisons were not planned for 44 (21.6%) of them. Less than half the reports (n = 137; 46%) provided baseline and outcome data per arm and reported the analysis as planned. Conclusions: Our findings highlight discrepancies between the planning and reporting of analyses in reports of multiple-arm trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the increasing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases, patient education is becoming important to strengthen disease prevention and control. We aimed to systematically determine the extent to which registered, ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated an educational intervention focus on patient-important outcomes (i.e., outcomes measuring patient health status and quality of life). Methods: On May 6, 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data and determined whether the outcomes assessed were 1) patient- important outcomes such as clinical events, functional status, pain, or quality of life or 2) surrogate outcomes, such as biological outcome, treatment adherence, or patient knowledge. Principal Findings: We selected 268 of the 642 potentially eligible studies and assessed a random sample of 150. Patientimportant outcomes represented 54% (178 of 333) of all primary outcomes and 46% (286 of 623) of all secondary outcomes. Overall, 69% of trials (104 of 150) used at least one patient-important outcome as a primary outcome and 66% (99 of 150) as a secondary outcome. Finally, for 31% of trials (46 of 150), primary outcomes were only surrogate outcomes. The results varied by medical area. In neuropsychiatric disorders, patient important outcomes represented 84% (51 of 61) of primary outcomes, as compared with 54% (32 of 59) in malignant neoplasm and 18% (4 of 22) in diabetes mellitus trials. In addition, only 35% assessed the long-term impact of interventions (i.e., >6 months). Conclusions: There is a need to improve the relevance of outcomes and to assess the long term impact of educational interventions in RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: We aimed to develop a new tool for assessing and depicting the applicability of the results of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the trial investigators' perspective. Methods: We identified all items related to applicability by a systematic methodological review, and then a sample of surgeons used these items in a web-based survey to evaluate the applicability of their own trial results. For each applicability item, participants had to indicate on a numerical scale that was simplified as a three-item scale: 1) items essential to consider, 2) items requiring attention, and 3) items inconsequential to the applicability of the results of their own RCT to clinical practice. For the final tool, we selected only items that were rated as being essential or requiring attention for at least 25% of the trials evaluated. We propose a specific process to construct the tool and to depict applicability in a graph. We identified all investigators of published and registered ongoing RCTs assessing surgery and invited them to participate in the web-based survey. Results: 148 surgeons assessed applicability for their own trial and participated in the process of item selection. The final tool contains 22 items (4 dedicated to patients, 5 to centers, 5 to surgeons and 8 to the intervention). We proposed a straightforward process of constructing the graphical tool: 1) a multidisciplinary team of investigators or other care providers participating in the trial could independently assess each item, 2) a consensus method could be used, and 3) the investigators could depict their assessment of the applicability of the trial results in 4 graphs related to patients, centers, surgeons and the intervention. Conclusions: This investigator-reported assessment tool could help readers define under what conditions they could reasonably apply the results of a surgical RCT to their clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to determine the representation of elderly people in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on trials of 4 medications-pioglitazone, rosuvastatin, risedronate, and valsartan-frequently used by elderly patients with chronic medical conditions. Methods and Findings: We selected all reports of RCTs indexed in PubMed from 1966 to April 2008 evaluating one of the 4 medications of interest. Estimates of the community-based ''on-treatment'' population were from a national health insurance database (SNIIR-AM) covering approximately 86% of the population in France. From this database, we evaluated data claims from January 2006 to December 2007 for 1,958,716 patients who received one of the medications of interest for more than 6 months. Of the 155 RCT reports selected, only 3 studies were exclusively of elderly patients (2 assessing valsartan; 1 risedronate). In only 4 of 37 reports (10.8%) for pioglitazone, 4 of 22 (18.2%) for risedronate, 3 of 29 (10.3%) for rosuvastatine and 9 of 67 (13.4%) for valsartan, the proportion of patients aged 65 or older was within or above that treated in clinical practice. In 62.2% of the reports for pioglitazone, 40.9% for risedronate, 37.9% for rosuvastatine, and 70.2% for valsartan, the proportion of patients aged 65 or older was lower than half that in the treated population. The representation of elderly people did not differ by publication date or sample size. Conclusions: Elderly patients are poorly represented in RCTs of drugs they are likely to receive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education. Methods: On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers. Results: We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73% )took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%). Conclusions: Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent study suggested that results of single-center trials are frequently contradicted when similar trials are performed in multicenter settings. Purpose: To perform a meta-epidemiologic study to evaluate whether estimates of treatment effect differ between single-center and multicenter randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). Data Sources: MEDLINE was searched via PubMed for metaanalyses of RCTs with binary outcomes that were publishedbetween August 2008 and January 2009 and in the first 6 months of 2010 in the 10 leading journals of each medical specialty. One issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was also searched. Study Selection: All individual RCTs included in the meta-analyses were selected. Data Extraction: Data were extracted and their quality was assessed by use of the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration. Data Synthesis: The primary outcome was the ratio of odds ratios (ROR), used to quantify the difference in estimated intervention effect between single-center and multicenter RCTs. An ROR less than 1 would indicate larger estimates of the intervention effect in single-center trials. Sensitivity analyses were performed with adjustment for sample size, risk of bias within RCTs, and variance of the log odds ratio to take publication bias into account. Forty-eightmeta-analyses were selected, including 421 RCTs (223 were singlecenter and 198 were multicenter). Single-center RCTs showed a larger intervention effect than did multicenter RCTs (combined ROR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83]), with low heterogeneity across individual meta-analyses (I2 = 12.0%; P = 0.24). Adjustment for sample size yielded consistent results (ROR, 0.85 [CI, 0.74 to 0.97]), as did adjustment for risk of bias within RCTs, such asallocation concealment (ROR, 0.76 [CI, 0.67 to 0.86]), and variance of log odds ratio (ROR, 0.83 [CI, 0.72 to 0.96]). Limitation: Despite sensitivity analyses, meta-confounding cannot be fully excluded. Conclusion: Single-center RCTs showed larger treatment effects than did multicenter RCTs, a finding that was consistent in all sensitivity analyses. These results suggest that this item should be considered when the results of RCTs and meta-analyses are interpreted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The challenge for evidence-based healthcare is to reduce mortality and the burden of diseases. This study aimed to compare where research is conducted to where research is needed for 2 public health priorities: tobacco consumption and HIV infection. Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in Cochrane systematic reviews published between 1997 and 2007 and registered ongoing RCTs identified in January 2009 through the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) evaluating interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection. We used the WHO and World Bank reports to classify the countries by income level, as well as map the global burden of disease and mortality attributable to tobacco use and HIV infection to the countries where the trials performed. Results: We evaluated 740 RCTs included in systematic reviews and 346 ongoing RCTs. For tobacco use, 4% of RCTs included in systematic reviews and 2% of ongoing trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries represented 70% of the mortality related to tobacco use. For HIV infection, 31% of RCTs included in systematic reviews and 33% of ongoing trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries represented 99% of the mortality related to HIV infection. Conclusions: Our results highlight an important underrepresentation of low- and middle-income countries in currently available evidence (RCTs included in systematic reviews) and awaiting evidence (registered ongoing RCTs) for reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which identified the nature and frequency of distorted presentation in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. The researchers analyzed data from MEDLINE through PubMed using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy to determine RCTs published in December 2006. It was concluded by the researchers that the reporting and interpretation of findings was inconsistent with the results in the representative sample of RCTs.

The article presents a study that evaluates the reporting of safety results in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It notes that a review of reports published in six medical journals is made. Methods include searching the MEDLINE database for published reports from January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007 wherein data were extracted through standardized form. The study found important heterogeneity and variability in the reports for harm-related results of RCTs.

The article discusses a study which compared the registered and published primary outcome of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Study authors reviewed MEDLINE via PubMed to search for RCT reports in cardiology, rheumatology and gastroenterology that were indexed in 2008 in 10 general medical and specialty journals. They found that 45.5 percent of the trials were adequately registered, while 27.6 percent published reports lack trial registration. They also noted that 31 percent of trials with adequate registration showed some discrepancies between the outcomes registered and outcomes published. Study authors concluded that selective outcome reporting is prevalent in RCT.

Abstract: Objectives: Adjudication committees (ACs) are recommended in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to standardize the assessment of events. We aimed to assess the reporting and functioning of ACs (synonyms: clinical event committees, endpoint committees) in clinical trials. Study Design and Setting: We searched five high-impact-factor medical journals for reports of RCTs with clinical event endpoints published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005. Results: ACs were reported in 33.4% of the 314 reports of RCTs. ACs were reported in 29.6% of trials with low risk of misclassification (i.e., “hard” main outcome), in 47.5% of trials with medium risk of misclassification (i.e., subjective main outcome and intervention delivered in a blinded fashion) and in 31% of trials with high risk of misclassification (i.e., subjective main outcome without intervention delivered in a blinded fashion). Selected cases to be adjudicated consisted largely of events identified by site investigators (93.3%). Data provided to the AC were reported for 47.4% of ACs. Conclusion: Reporting of ACs is not fitted to the risk of biased misclassification. Important aspects of the functioning of ACs are insufficiently reported or raise methodological issues. We propose some recommendations for planning and reporting ACs in clinical trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article presents a study which examined data reporting related to external validity from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Discussions of the methods used as well as the results of the said study are offered. The study found that there is low reporting of data related to external validity in reports of RCTs assessing pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for hip and knee OA.

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: The study design was a methodological systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The data sources were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All reports of randomized controlled trials assessing stent treatment for coronary disease published between January 1, 2003, and September 30, 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. Results: 132 articles were analyzed. Major cardiac adverse events (death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were reported as primary or secondary outcomes in 107 reports (81%). However, 19% of the articles contained no data on cardiac events. The mode of data collection of adverse events was given in 29 reports (22%) and a definition of expected adverse events was provided in 47 (36%). The length of follow-up was reported in 95 reports (72%). Assessment of adverse events by an adjudication committee was described in 46 reports (35%), and adverse events were described as being followed up for 6 months in 24% of reports (n = 32), between 7 to 12 months in 42% (n = 55) and for more than 1 year in 4% (n = 5). In 115 reports (87%), numerical data on the nature of the adverse events were reported per treatment arm. Procedural complications were described in 30 articles (23%). The causality of adverse events was reported in only 4 articles. Conclusion: Several harm-related data were not adequately accounted for in articles of randomized controlled trials assessing stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Trials Registration: Trials manuscript: 5534201182098351 (T80802P) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background and Objective: To develop a checklist of items measuring the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs). Study Design and Setting: The Delphi consensus method was used to select and reduce the number of items in the checklist. A total of 154 individuals were invited to participate: epidemiologists and statisticians involved in the field of methodology of RCTs (n = 55), members of the Cochrane Collaboration (n = 41), and clinicians involved in planning NPT clinical trials (n = 58). Participants ranked on a 10-point Likert scale whether an item should be included in the checklist. Results: Fifty-five experts (36%) participated in the survey. They were experienced in systematic reviews (68% were involved in the Cochrane Collaboration) and in planning RCTs (76%). Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted to achieve consensus. The final checklist contains 10 items and 5 subitems, with items related to the standardization of the intervention, care provider influence, and additional measures to minimize the potential bias from lack of blinding of participants, care providers, and outcome assessors. Conclusions: This tool can be used to critically appraise the medical literature, design NPT studies, and assess the quality of trial reports included in systematic reviews. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background and Objective: To determine methods to assess the success of blinding in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the Cochrane Method Register and performed a manual search to target studies that attempt to assess blinding and describe the methods used in those studies. Results: A total of 90 reports were selected. Reports assessed the success of blinding participants (n = 58), care providers (n = 36), and outcome assessors (n = 15). Of the 58 reports assessing the success of blinding participants, 54 (93%) reported asking participants to guess their treatment assignment. There was no consistency in timing of assessment (e.g., once at the end of the trial, 57%, or several times during the trial, 26%) or modalities of answering (e.g., “do not know” answers, 43%, or participants forced to guess, 31%). A statistical analysis was performed in 57% of reports. The statistical analysis mainly compared the proportion of correct guesses to those produced by chance (32%) or checked for a relation between participants'' guesses and treatment assignment (23%). Conclusions: Methods of assessing the success of blinding, analysis and reporting the results were inconsistent and questionable. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To compare the feasibility of blinding and the perceived risk of unblinding in trials evaluating pharmacologic (PT) and nonpharmacologic treatments (NPT) of hip or knee osteoarthritis.Study design and setting: Two independent reviewers assessed the feasibility of blinding patients, care providers, and outcome assessors, the perceived risk of unblinding, and whether blinding was reported in 110 reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PT and NPT in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis.Results: Blinding was considered to be possible less often in NPT trials than in PT trials for patients (42 vs. 96%; P < .001), care providers (12 vs. 96%; P < .001), and outcome assessors (34 vs. 98%; P < .001). When blinding was judged feasible, the perceived risk of unblinding was more often considered moderate or important in NPT than PT trials for patients (35 vs. 14%, P = .02) and outcome assessors (44 vs. 10%, P = .0004). When blinding was judged feasible, it was reported less often in NPT reports than in PT reports for patients (46 vs. 98%, P < .001), care providers (43 vs. 83%, P = .03), and outcome assessors (72 vs. 98%, P = .0006).Conclusion: Blinding appears to be more difficult to achieve and unblinding may occur more often in NPT than PT trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Inadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided.Methods: This research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcomes for patients and other decision makers. We used a three-step approach. (1) First, in each review, we identified, for each important outcome, RCTs that were excluded from the corresponding meta-analysis. (2) Then, for these RCTs, we systematically searched for registrations and protocols to distinguish between inadequate planning (an important outcome was not reported in registries or protocols), selective reporting (an important outcome was reported in registries or protocols but not in publications), and incomplete reporting (an important outcome was incompletely reported in publications). (3) Finally, we assessed, with the consensus of five experts, the feasibility and cost of measuring the important outcomes that were not planned. We considered inadequately planned or selectively or incompletely reported important outcomes as avoidable waste if the outcome could have been easily measured at no additional cost based on expert evaluation.Results: Of the 2711 RCTs included in the main comparison of 290 reviews, 2115 (78%) were excluded from at least one meta-analysis of important outcomes. Every trial contributed to 55%, on average, of the meta-analyses of important outcomes. Of the 310 RCTs published in 2010 or later, 156 were registered. Inadequate planning affected 79% of these RCTs, whereas incomplete and selective reporting affected 41% and 15%, respectively. For 63% of RCTs, we found at least one missing important outcome for which the waste was avoidable and for 30%, the waste was avoidable for all important outcomes.Conclusions: Most of the RCTs included in our sample did not contribute to all the important outcomes in meta-analyses, mostly because of inadequate planning or incomplete reporting. A large part of this waste of research seemed to be avoidable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction: In the original publication [1] the last sentence in the last paragraph under 'Perspectives and implications' in the Discussions section needs to be removed. The correct version can be found in this Erratum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Active discopathy is associated with a specific phenotype of chronic low back pain (LBP). Local inflammation has a role in active discopathy-associated symptoms.Objective: To assess the efficacy of a single glucocorticoid intradiscal injection (GC IDI) in patients with chronic LBP with active discopathy.Design: Prospective, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, controlled study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00804531).Setting: 3 tertiary care centers in France.Patients: 135 patients with chronic LBP with active discopathy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Intervention: A single GC IDI (25 mg prednisolone acetate) during discography (n = 67) or discography alone (n = 68).Measurements: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with LBP intensity less than 40 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (0 [no pain] to 100 [maximum pain] in 10-point increments) in the previous 48 hours at 1 month after the intervention. The main secondary outcomes were LBP intensity and persistent active discopathy on MRI at 12 months and spine-specific limitations in activities, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, employment status, and use of analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at 1 and 12 months.Results: All randomly assigned patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At 1 month after the intervention, the percentage of responders (LBP intensity <40) was higher in the GC IDI group (36 of 65 [55.4%]) than the control group (21 of 63 [33.3%]) (absolute risk difference, 22.1 percentage points [95% CI, 5.5 to 38.7 percentage points]; P = 0.009). The groups did not differ in LBP intensity at 12 months and in most secondary outcomes at 1 and 12 months.Limitation: Tertiary care setting.Conclusion: In chronic LBP associated with active discopathy, a single GC IDI reduces LBP at 1 month but not at 12 months.Primary Funding Source: French Ministry of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two letters to the editor are presented concerning the article "Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials," by S. Mathieu and colleagues, published in the 2009 issue, including a comment on the citation of the journal "Arthritis & Rheumatism/Arthritis Care & Research" in the study and a reply from the authors.