Search

Background Under-reporting of clinical trial results can lead to negative consequences that include inhibiting propagation of knowledge, limiting the understanding of how devices work, affecting conclusions of meta-analyses, and failing to acknowledge patient participation. Therefore clinical trial transparency, through publication of trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov or in manuscript form, is important. We aimed to examine clinical trial transparency in endoscopic clinical trials. Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for endoscopy trials up to October 2019. Adherence to the reporting of results to the database or in publication form was recorded for each trial. Results The final analysis included 923 trials, of which 801 were completed and 122 were either terminated or suspended. Results were available either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in publication for 751/923 trials (81.4 %). Other fields have reported a publication rate of 40 %–63 %. Results were available on ClinicalTrials.gov for 168 trials (18.2 %) and in the form of a publication for 720 trails (78.0 %). Conclusions Compared with other fields in medicine, endoscopy clinical trials have a high rate of clinical trial transparency. However, there is room for improvements as close to one-fifth of trials fail to report results and 81.8 % do not report results to ClinicalTrials.gov. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: While several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) exist to guide clinical decision-making in patients with generalized cancer pain, to date there has been no comprehensive review of their quality. Our aim was to address this deficiency via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool., Design: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline-based systematic literature search followed by AGREE II appraisal of identified CPGs., Methods: Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 3, 2021, for relevant CPGs. Four authors (FR, AR, JN, JH) independently performed assessments and evaluations of the selected CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain percentage scores were calculated with 60% as the satisfactory quality threshold. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were also calculated to assess interrater reliability., Results: Twelve guidelines were selected for inclusion. Two guidelines were classified high quality, three guidelines as average quality, and seven as low quality. Domains of clarity of presentation (82.41% ± 18.20%) and scope and purpose (56.48% ± 30.59%) received the highest mean scores, while domains of applicability (44.53% ± 26.61%) and stakeholder involvement (36.81% ± 21.24%) received the lowest. ICCs showed high consistency between reviewers (range 0.85-0.98)., Conclusions: Most CPGs for generalized cancer pain are of low quality. Future guidelines can be improved by better-defining scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence during development., Clinical Implications: We hope these critiques improve the quality of published guidelines to promote an improved quality of care and method to measure quality outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)