Search

Introduction: Pilot or feasibility trials examine the feasibility, viability and recruitment potential of larger, main trials. Specifically, a pilot trial can be instrumental in identifying methodological issues essential to the development of an effective research protocol. However, numerous studies published as pilot or feasibility studies have demonstrated notable inconsistencies in the nature of information reported, resulting in poor-quality and incomplete reporting. It is unclear whether such low quality or incompleteness of reporting is also prevalent in arthroplasty pilot trials., Methods and Analysis: This protocol outlines a methodological survey examining the completeness of reporting among hip and knee arthroplasty pilot trials in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 extension to pilot trials. Secondary objectives include: (1) determining the prevalence of 'spin' practices, defined as: (a) placing a focus on statistical significance rather than feasibility, (b) presenting results that show the trial to be non-feasible as feasible or (c) emphasising the effectiveness or potential intervention benefits rather than feasibility; (2) determining factors associated with incomplete reporting, and 'spin'. A search of PubMed will be conducted for pilot trials in hip or knee arthroplasty published between 01 January 2017 and 31 December 2023. Following screening, appropriate data will be extracted from eligible publications and reported as descriptive statistics, encompassing elements of the CONSORT checklist associated with completeness of reporting. Logistic regression analysis and Poisson regression will be used to analyse factors associated with completeness of reporting and spin., Ethics and Dissemination: This methodological review does not require formal ethical approval, as it will solely involve the use of published and publicly reported literature. The results of this study will be disseminated through submission to peer-reviewed journals and academic conference presentations. Study details will be sent to McMaster University's media coordinators to be shared through the institution's research-focused platforms., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions., Results: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring., Conclusion: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Retention in HIV care is necessary to achieve adherence to antiretroviral therapy, viral load suppression, and optimal health outcomes. There is no standard definition for retention in HIV care, which compromises consistent and reliable reporting and comparison of retention across facilities, jurisdictions, and studies., Objective: The objective of this study is to explore how stakeholders involved in HIV care define retention in HIV care and their preferences on measuring retention., Methods: We will use an exploratory sequential mixed methods design involving HIV stakeholder groups such as people living with HIV, people involved in providing care for PLHIV, and people involved in decision-making about PLHIV. In the qualitative phase of the study, we will conduct 20-25 in-depth interviews to collect the perspectives of HIV stakeholders on using their preferred retention measures. The findings from the qualitative phase will inform the development of survey items for the quantitative phase. Survey participants (n = 385) will be invited to rate the importance of each approach to measuring retention on a seven-point Likert scale. We will merge the qualitative and quantitative findings phase findings to inform a consensus-building framework for a standard definition of retention in care., Ethical Issues and Dissemination: This study has received ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and among stakeholder groups., Limitations: This study has limitations; we won't be able to arrive at a standard definition; a Delphi technique amongst the stakeholders will be utilized using the framework to reach a consensus globally accepted definition., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Rehman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Pooling studies with different clinical and methodological features may lead to statistical heterogeneity, particularly if heterogeneity remains unexplained. One potential source of heterogeneity may be how much the included trials tend toward a pragmatic or explanatory design. Many tools have been developed to aid researchers in quantifying pragmatism in clinical trials, at both the design and appraisal stages.In this chapter we review these tools, illustrate examples of their use, and discuss methods of including pragmatism in meta-analysis as a way of exploring heterogeneity.We suggest a stepwise approach to incorporating evidence from pragmatic and explanatory trials which includes planning to assess pragmatism at the protocol stage, collecting data on pragmatism, extracting data on treatment effects, incorporating pragmatism in meta-analysis using subgroup analysis or meta-regression techniques, and interpreting and reporting the findings transparently., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Interrupted time series (ITS) design is commonly used to evaluate the impact of interventions in healthcare settings. Segmented regression (SR) is the most commonly used statistical method and has been shown to be useful in practical applications involving ITS designs. Nevertheless, SR is prone to aggregation bias, which leads to imprecision and loss of power to detect clinically meaningful differences. The objective of this article is to present a weighted SR method, where variability across patients within the healthcare facility and across time points is incorporated through weights. We present the methodological framework, provide optimal weights associated with data at each time point and discuss relevant statistical inference. We conduct extensive simulations to evaluate performance of our method and provide comparative analysis with the traditional SR using established performance criteria such as bias, mean square error and statistical power. Illustrations using real data is also provided. In most simulation scenarios considered, the weighted SR method produced estimators that are uniformly more precise and relatively less biased compared to the traditional SR. The weighted approach also associated with higher statistical power in the scenarios considered. The performance difference is much larger for data with high variability across patients within healthcare facilities. The weighted method proposed here allows us to account for the heterogeneity in the patient population, leading to increased accuracy and power across all scenarios. We recommend researchers to carefully design their studies and determine their sample size by incorporating heterogeneity in the patient population., (© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Introduction: Oral anticoagulant (OAC) intervention trials have typically included clinical event outcomes. However, there is no standard list of outcomes to be used in OAC research. This study aimed to describe and classify the outcomes used in recent prospective clinical studies involving OACs., Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from January 2009 to July 2019 for prospective studies with an intervention or control group that included one or more oral anticoagulants. We abstracted details about each included study and the outcomes used from the study report and its accompanying protocol. Using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative recommendations, we categorised each outcome into one of five domains (mortality/survival, physiological/clinical, life impact, resource use, and adverse events). Our primary outcome was the prevalence of use of an outcome domain across studies., Results: We included 70 prospective studies, including 52 randomized controlled trials and 18 prospective cohort studies. A total of 121 different outcomes were reported. The COMET domains were represented in the 70 studies as follows: mortality (63/70, 90.0%); physiological/clinical domain (70/70, 100%), life impact domain (43/70, 61.4%), resource use domain (26/70, 37.1%), and adverse events domain (55/70, 78.6%)., Conclusion: Outcome reporting in prospective studies of OACs more frequently concentrates on mortality, physiological/clinical domains, and adverse events compared to life impact and resource utilization domains, the latter uncommonly used. A priority for future research includes developing a core outcome set (COS) for OAC research that represents all domains., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Randomised controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries should include a clear description of outcomes to increase transparency and replicability and improve the construction of scientific evidence. The objective of this study was to assess the completeness of the descriptions of the outcomes of therapeutic interventions in adults with pressure injury (PI) and factors associated with completeness. This was a systematic methodological survey. The completeness of the outcome was assessed according to five criteria: domain (title), specific measure (technique/instrument used), specific metric, or format of the outcome data of each participant that was used for analysis, aggregation (method data from each group were summarised), and time that was used for analysis. Sixty-eight studies were included for analysis. A total of 265 outcomes were reported, and 46 trials (67.6%) had 73 primary outcomes, which were mainly intermediates/substitutes (78.8%). The main outcome evaluated was the ulcer area reduction (36.6%). Approximately 37.2% of the outcomes were incompletely reported, and the least described element was the data aggregation method (72.8%). Only 48.4% of the outcomes with the specified technique had the same reference or validation. Poor quality of reporting outcomes was associated with studies with an older year of publication and a small sample size, single-center studies, and those sponsored by industry. PI studies use many outcomes, mostly surrogates or intermediates, and some of them are incompletely described., (© 2020 The Authors. International Wound Journal published by Medicalhelplines.com Inc (3M) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Methodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool-the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist-to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies., Methods and Analysis: We will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies., Ethics and Dissemination: The consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites., Registration: We have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ‘Yes, there are competing interests for one or more authors and I have provided a Competing Interests statement in my manuscript and in the box below’., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Classical meta-analyses routinely treated studies with no events in both arms noninformative and excluded them from analyses. This study assessed whether such studies contain information and have an influence on the conclusions of meta-analyses., Study Design and Setting: We collected meta-analyses of binary outcomes with at least one study having no events in both arms from Cochrane systematic reviews (2003-2018). We used the generalized linear mixed model to reanalyze these meta-analyses by two approaches: one including studies with no events in both arms and one excluding such studies. The magnitude and direction of odds ratio (OR), P value, and width of 95% confidence interval (CI) were compared. A simulation study was conducted to examine the robustness of results., Results: We identified 442 meta-analyses. In comparing paired meta-analyses that included studies with no events in both arms vs. those not, 8 (1.80%) resulted in different directions on OR; 41 (9.28%) altered conclusions on statistical significance. Substantial changes occurred on P value (55.66% increased and 44.12% decreased) and the width of 95% CI (50.68% inflated and 49.32% declined) when excluding studies with no events. Simulation study confirmed these findings., Conclusion: Studies with no events in both arms are not necessarily noninformative. Excluding such studies may alter conclusions., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature., Methods: Electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively., Results: There were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting., Conclusions: We found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

Background: Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials., Methods: An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials., Results: A randomised trial can usefully be classified as 'health equity relevant' if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as 'health equity relevant' may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies., Conclusion: The conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: There has been increasing interest in pragmatic trials methodology. As a result, tools such as the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) are being used prospectively to help researchers design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) within the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. There may be value in applying the PRECIS-2 tool retrospectively in a systematic review setting as it could provide important information about how to pool data based on the degree of pragmatism., Objectives: To investigate the role of pragmatism as a source of heterogeneity in systematic reviews by (1) identifying systematic reviews with meta-analyses of RCTs that have moderate to high heterogeneity, (2) applying PRECIS-2 to RCTs of systematic reviews, (3) evaluating the inter-rater reliability of PRECIS-2, (4) determining how much of this heterogeneity may be explained by pragmatism., Methods: A cross-sectional methodological review will be conducted on systematic reviews of RCTs published in the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2014 to 1 January 2017. Included systematic reviews will have a minimum of 10 RCTs in the meta-analysis of the primary outcome and moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I 2 ≥50%). Of the eligible systematic reviews, a random selection of 10 will be included for quantitative evaluation. In each systematic review, RCTs will be scored using the PRECIS-2 tool, in duplicate. Agreement between raters will be measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression will be used to evaluate how much variability in the primary outcome may be due to pragmatism., Dissemination: This review will be among the first to evaluate the PRECIS-2 tool in a systematic review setting. Results from this research will provide inter-rater reliability information about PRECIS-2 and may be used to provide methodological guidance when dealing with pragmatism in systematic reviews and subgroup considerations. On completion, this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Although venous ulcers have a great social and economic impact, there is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support appropriate management for this disease. Framing the research question using the Population; Intervention; Comparator; Outcome; Time frame (PICOT) format in RCTs can improve the quality of the research design., Objectives: To evaluate how the PICOT format is used to frame a research question in reports of RCTs of venous ulcer disease and to determine the factors associated with better adherence to the PICOT format in framing the research question., Methods and Analyses: We will conduct a systematic survey of RCTs on venous ulcers published in the National Institute of Health, PubMed database between January 2009 and May 2016. We will include all RCTs addressing therapeutic intervention for venous ulcer disease involving human subjects, and published in the English language. The selection process will be carried out in duplicate by two independent investigators. First, titles and abstracts will be screened, then full-text articles. We will examine whether the five elements of the PICOT format are used in formulating the research question and give a score between 0 and 5. The primary outcome will be the proportion of studies that have adequately reported all five PICOT elements., Dissemination: This will be the first survey to assess how the PICOT format is used to frame research questions on the management of venous ulcers in reports of RCTs. On completion, this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed biomedical journal for publication and the findings will also be presented at scientific conferences., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are routinely used to elicit patient preferences to improve health outcomes and healthcare services. While many fractional factorial designs can be created, some are more statistically optimal than others. The objective of this simulation study was to investigate how varying the number of (1) attributes, (2) levels within attributes, (3) alternatives and (4) choice tasks per survey will improve or compromise the statistical efficiency of an experimental design., Design and Methods: A total of 3204 DCE designs were created to assess how relative design efficiency (d-efficiency) is influenced by varying the number of choice tasks (2-20), alternatives (2-5), attributes (2-20) and attribute levels (2-5) of a design. Choice tasks were created by randomly allocating attribute and attribute level combinations into alternatives., Outcome: Relative d-efficiency was used to measure the optimality of each DCE design., Results: DCE design complexity influenced statistical efficiency. Across all designs, relative d-efficiency decreased as the number of attributes and attribute levels increased. It increased for designs with more alternatives. Lastly, relative d-efficiency converges as the number of choice tasks increases, where convergence may not be at 100% statistical optimality., Conclusions: Achieving 100% d-efficiency is heavily dependent on the number of attributes, attribute levels, choice tasks and alternatives. Further exploration of overlaps and block sizes are needed. This study's results are widely applicable for researchers interested in creating optimal DCE designs to elicit individual preferences on health services, programmes, policies and products., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Serotonin-modulating medications are commonly prescribed for mental health issues. Currently, there is limited consensus on weight gain and dysglycaemia development among children using these medications. The objective of this study is to review and synthesise all the available evidence on serotonin-modulating medications and their effects on body mass index (BMI), weight and glycaemic control., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of serotonin-modulating medications in the treatment of children 2-17 years with mental health conditions. The outcome measures are BMI, weight and dysglycaemia. We will perform literature searches through Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PsycINFO and grey literature resources. Two reviewers from the team will independently screen titles and abstracts, assess the eligibility of full-text trials, extract information from eligible trials and assess the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. Results of this review will be summarised narratively and quantitatively as appropriate. We will perform a multiple treatment comparison using network meta-analysis to estimate the pooled direct, indirect and network estimate for all serotonin-modulating medications on outcomes if adequate data are available., Ethics and Dissemination: Serotonin-modulating medications are widely prescribed for children with mental health diseases and are also used off-label. This network meta-analysis will be the first to assess serotonin modulating antidepressants and their effects on weight and glycaemic control. We anticipate that our results will help physicians and patients make more informed choices while considering the side effect profile. We will disseminate the results of the systematic review and network meta-analysis through peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015024367., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Health equity concerns the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide evidence about the impact of an intervention on health equity for specific disadvantaged populations or in general populations; this is important for equity-focused decision-making. Previous work has identified a lack of adequate reporting guidelines for assessing health equity in RCTs. The objective of this study is to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of health equity considerations in RCTs, as an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)., Methods/design: A six-phase study using integrated knowledge translation governed by a study executive and advisory board will assemble empirical evidence to inform the CONSORT-equity extension. To create the guideline, the following steps are proposed: (1) develop a conceptual framework for identifying "equity-relevant trials," (2) assess empirical evidence regarding reporting of equity-relevant trials, (3) consult with global methods and content experts on how to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (4) collect broad feedback and prioritize items needed to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (5) establish consensus on the CONSORT-equity extension: the guideline for equity-relevant trials, and (6) broadly disseminate and implement the CONSORT-equity extension., Discussion: This work will be relevant to a broad range of RCTs addressing questions of effectiveness for strategies to improve practice and policy in the areas of social determinants of health, clinical care, health systems, public health, and international development, where health and/or access to health care is a primary outcome. The outcomes include a reporting guideline (CONSORT-equity extension) for equity-relevant RCTs and a knowledge translation strategy to broadly encourage its uptake and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies.

Unlabelled: Knowledge translation (KT) involves implementation of evidence-based strategies and guidelines into practice to improve the process of care and health outcomes for patients. Findings from pragmatic trials may be used in KT to provide patients, healthcare providers and policymakers with information to optimize healthcare decisions based on how a given strategy or intervention performs under the real world conditions. However, pragmatic trials have been criticized for having the following problems: i) high rates of loss to follow-up; ii) nonadherence to study intervention; iii) unblinded treatment and patient self-assessment, which can potentially create bias; iv) being less perfect experiments than efficacy trials; v) sacrificing internal validity to achieve generalizability; and vi) often requiring large sample sizes to detect small treatment effects in heterogeneous populations. In this paper, we discuss whether these criticisms hold merit, or if they are simply driven by confusion about the purpose of pragmatic trials. We use the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) trial--a community randomized pragmatic trial designed to assess whether offering a highly organized, community-based CHAP intervention compared to usual care can reduce cardiovascular disease-related outcomes--to address these specific criticisms and illustrate how to reduce this confusion., Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN50550004 (9 May 2007).

Background: Experts recommend formulating a structured research question to guide the research design. However, the basis for this recommendation has not been formally evaluated. The aim of this study was to examine if a structured research question using the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time-frame) format is associated with a better reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods: We evaluated 89 RCTs reports published in three endocrinology journals in 2005 and 2006, the quality of reporting of which was assessed in a previous study. We examined whether the reports stated each of the five elements of a structured research question: population, intervention, comparator, outcome and time-frame. A PICOT score was created with a possible score between 0 and 5. Outcomes were: 1) a 14-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials; and 2) a 3-point key score (KS), based on allocation concealment, blinding and use of intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted multivariable regression analyses using generalized estimating equations to determine if a higher PICOT score or the use of a structured research question were independently associated with a better reporting quality. Journal of publication, funding source and sample size were identified as factors associated with OQS in our previous report on this dataset, and therefore included in the model., Results: A higher PICOT score was independently associated with OQS (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.021, 95% CI: 1.012 to 1.029) and KS (IRR = 1.142, 95% CI: 1.079 to 1.210). A structured research question was present in 33.7% of the reports and it was associated with a better OQS (IRR = 1.095, 95% CI 1.059-1.132) and KS (IRR = 1.530, 95% CI 1.311-1.786)., Conclusions: Better framing of the research question using the PICOT format is independently associated with better overall reporting quality - although the effect is small - and better reporting of key methodologies.

Context: The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology., Objective: Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality., Design and Setting: We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006., Participants: We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus., Main Outcomes: There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis., Results: Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS., Conclusions: The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations.