Search

Background: The World Health Organization recommends that a randomised controlled trial (RCT) publishes its results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of study completion. When RCTs are not published or publication is delayed, this can contribute to publication bias, which is the tendency for studies with positive or significant results to be published more frequently than studies with nonsignificant or negative results. This bias skews the available evidence, creating a distorted view of the research landscape. There is uncertainty about which activities best mitigate publication bias. This review systematically synthesises literature on activities that targeted researchers with the intention of reducing publication bias among health science researchers. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Scopus and forward and backward citation searches. There were no restrictions on language, time or publication status. We included studies of any design that tested an activity to reduce publication bias in health research. Ideally, participants had to be investigators or researchers who had conducted, led or been involved in RCTs. The context was any research institution that conducts research. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility, followed by duplicate full-text screening and data extraction. One reviewer collated and summarised the extracted data and arranged these using an analytical framework to describe the findings thematically. For quality assurance, a second reviewer checked the data analysis. Results: Our database search yielded 14,185 records, with 11,754 after de-duplication. Of these, we excluded 11,728 records after title and abstract screening. We assessed 26 full texts for eligibility. One of these met the eligibility criteria. Forward and backward citation searches yielded 57 records, and 43 were eligible. We included 44 studies published between 1995 and 2022 that described activities promoting the publication of health-related research. We identified 10 broad activities that were often used in combination and concentrated on writing manuscripts. Discussion: This review describes several strategies that have been used to assist health researchers in publishing their findings. However, our search was unable to find studies that tested activities specifically geared toward researchers conducting RCTs. Rigorous research is needed to determine effective strategies for reducing publication bias among trialists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the effects of device‐based circumcisions compared with standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult males (10 years old and above). Methods: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions to the language of publication or publication status. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of device‐based circumcisions compared to standard surgical dissection‐based circumcision conducted by health professionals in a medical setting. We reported study results as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and a random‐effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Results: A total of 18 trials met the inclusion criteria. These trials did not report severe adverse events (AEs; 11 trials, 3472 participants). There may be a slight increase in moderate AEs for devices compared to surgical techniques (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.55–3.10; I2 = 68%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; low‐certainty evidence); this corresponds to eight more (ranging from 15 fewer to 84 more) moderate AEs per 1000 participants. We are uncertain about the difference in mild AEs between groups when devices are used compared to surgical techniques (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.44–2.72; I2 = 91%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Conclusions: We found no serious AEs using a circumcision device compared to surgical techniques. Still, they may slightly increase moderate AEs, and it is unclear whether there is a difference in mild AEs. High‐quality trials evaluating this intervention are needed to provide further certainty regarding the rates of AEs. Clinicians, patients, and policymakers can use these results combined with their contextual factors to inform the best approach that suits their healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB) poses a substantial burden in sub-Saharan Africa and is the leading cause of death amongst infectious diseases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. We aimed to describe published TB treatment trials conducted in Africa. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of published TB trials conducted in at least one African country. In November 2019, we searched three databases using the validated Africa search filter and Cochrane's sensitive trial string. Published RCTs conducted in at least one African country were included for analysis. Records were screened for eligibility. Co-reviewers assisted with duplicate data extraction. Extracted data included: the country where studies were conducted, publication dates, ethics statement, trial registration number, participant's age range. We used Cochrane's Risk of Bias criteria to assess methodological quality. Results: We identified 10,495 records; 175 trials were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were published between 1952 and 2019. The median sample size was 206 participants (interquartile range: 73–657). Most trials were conducted in South Africa (n = 83) and were drug therapy trials (n = 130). First authors were from 30 countries globally. South Africa had the most first authors (n = 55); followed by the United States of America (USA) (n = 28) and Great Britain (n = 14) with fewer other African countries contributing to the first author tally. Children under 13 years of age eligible to participate in the trials made up 17/175 trials (9.71%). International governments (n = 29) were the most prevalent funders. Ninety-four trials provided CONSORT flow diagrams. Methodological quality such as allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported or unclear in most trials. Conclusions: By mapping African TB trials, we were able to identify potential research gaps. Many of the global north's researchers were found to be the lead authors in these African trials. Few trials tested behavioural interventions compared to drugs, and far fewer tested interventions on children compared to adults to improve TB outcomes. Lastly, funders and researchers should ensure better methodological quality reporting of trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]