Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.

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]