RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a crucial role in the research and advancement of medical treatment. A cross-sectional study design was utilized to analyze the completeness of intervention reporting using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and to evaluate factors associated with intervention reporting. A comparison of the completeness of intervention reporting before and after the publication of TIDieR was sought. METHODS: PubMed was searched for RCTs in the top 10 obesity journals per the Google h5-index. After excluding non-RCTs, 300 articles were randomly sampled. After assessing each publication for eligibility, two authors (SLR and DT) extracted data related to intervention reporting from records in an independent, masked fashion. Data were then verified and analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that the quality of intervention reporting is quite variable. Overall, no statistically significant difference in the quality of intervention reporting before and after the release of TIDieR guidelines was found. In general, obesity research has good intervention reporting in areas such as the mode of delivery, material lists for intervention, and procedure lists. However, four main areas in which obesity researchers can improve reporting quality were determined. These include providing the expertise and background of intervention providers and providing statements regarding the assessment of fidelity of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent intervention is warranted to improve the quality of research reporting in obesity research, which is a fundamental component of obesity management. This will likely require a unified approach from researchers, journals, and funding sources.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Our primary aim of our study is to evaluate the prevalence of spin among abstracts in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints. METHODS: This study was conducted in accordance with a previously written protocol publicly available via the Open Science Framework. PubMed (which includes Medline) was searched for RCTs in orthopaedic surgery. The articles that were identified were then uploaded to Rayyan, and the abstracts were screened for inclusion. To be included, a trial had to have randomized the patients for intervention, statistically compare multiple groups, and had a primary endpoint that was not significant. Odds ratios and summary statistics (frequencies and proportions) were then calculated for spin in the abstracts. RESULTS: Of the 780 articles retrieved from our search string, 250 articles met the inclusion criteria. Analysis resulted in 112/250 (44.80%; [95% CI, 38.64-50.96]) RCTs that containing spin within the abstract. Of the 112 RCTs, 52 (46.43%; [95% CI, 37.19-55.66]) had spin in the results, and 89 (79.46%; [95% CI, 71.98-86.95]) had spin in the conclusion of the abstract. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery was found to have the highest prevalence of spin (21/37, 56.76% [95% CI, 40.79%-72.72%]) while Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery had the lowest prevalence of spin (5/15, 33.33% [95% CI, 9.48%-57.19%]). No correlation was found between industry funding and increased odds of spin in the abstract (uOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.63). Discrepancies for our primary endpoint, prevalence of spin among abstracts, were analyzed with Gwet's AC1 inter-rater statistic and found to be 81% [95% CI, 0.75-0.87]. CONCLUSION: Spin was found in 44.8% of the abstracts within our sample of orthopaedic RCTs. Nonsignificant primary data were often represented to seem significant, many orthopaedic RCTs did not indicate primary endpoints, and orthopaedic RCTs infrequently reported trial registration.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. METHODS: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. RESULTS: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%). CONCLUSION: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a crucial role in advancing patient care within otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OTL-HNS), yet studies have shown the reporting of these trials needs improvement. Here, we evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting of RCTs in OTL-HNS and evaluate whether the publication of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist has influenced intervention reporting. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs published in top OTL-HNS journals in two cohorts, one before the release of the TIDieR and one afterward. A sample of 300 RCTs was randomly selected and screened for inclusion. Once the dataset was finalized, we extracted trial characteristics and assessed each trial's adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We then used descriptive characteristics, a generalized estimated equation, time-series analysis, and a two-sample t test to analyze our data. RESULTS: After screening was completed, 173 RCTs were included in our analysis. Of these RCTs, 103 (59.5%) showed <60% adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We found a slight increase in adherence to TIDieR items after the checklist was released, although this was not statistically significant (P = .91). In addition, we found that trials with a crossover study design or multiple interventions and those that provided a Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials statement were associated with greater adherence to the TIDieR checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of OTL-HNS RCTs included in our analysis showed suboptimal reporting factors related to the TIDieR checklist. Requiring a TIDieR statement and automating the journal requirements process for all OTL-HNS clinical trials would be a worthwhile, efficient approach to improving research quality and ultimately patient care within OTL-HNS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:E507-E514, 2020.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to find evidence that intervention reporting in urology randomized controlled trials is suboptimal. Action to improve intervention reporting is warranted and we advise extending TIDieR into Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials guidelines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: RCTs identified using a PubMed search of 15 addiction journals and a 5-year cross-section. OUTCOME MEASURES: Completeness of reporting. RESULTS: Our analysis of 394 addiction RCTs found that the mean number of CONSORT items reported was 19.2 (SD 5.2), out of a possible 31. Twelve items were reported in <50% of RCTs; similarly, 12 items were reported in >75% of RCTs. Journal endorsement of CONSORT was found to improve the number of CONSORT items reported. CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting quality may prohibit readers from critically appraising the methodological quality of addiction trials. We recommend journal endorsement of CONSORT since our study and those previous have shown that CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reporting.

Asunto(s)