Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The Fragility Index (FI) and the FI family are statistical tools that measure the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCT) by examining how many patients would need a different outcome to change the statistical significance of the main results of a trial. These tools have recently gained popularity in assessing the robustness or fragility of clinical trials in many clinical areas and analyzing the strength of the trial outcomes underpinning guideline recommendations. However, it has not been applied to perioperative care Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to survey clinical practice guidelines in anesthesiology to determine the Fragility Index of RCTs supporting the recommendations, and to explore trial characteristics associated with fragility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A methodological survey will be conducted using the targeted population of RCT referenced in the recommendations of the CPG of the North American and European societies from 2012 to 2022. FI will be assessed for statistically significant and non-significant trial results. A Poisson regression analysis will be used to explore factors associated with fragility. DISCUSSION: This methodological survey aims to estimate the Fragility Index of RCTs supporting perioperative care guidelines published by North American and European societies of anesthesiology between 2012 and 2022. The results of this study will inform the methodological quality of RCTs included in perioperative care guidelines and identify areas for improvement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common non-traumatic disabling disease affecting young adults. A definitive curative treatment is currently unavailable. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) on MS. Because of the uncertain quality of these RCTs, the recommendations for routine use of CHM for MS remain inconclusive. The comprehensive evaluation of the quality of RCTs of CHM for MS is urgent. Methods: Nine databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Sinomed, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database, were searched from inception to September 2023. RCTs comparing CHM with placebo or pharmacological interventions for MS were considered eligible. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and its extension for CHM formulas (CONSORT-CHM Formulas) checklists were used to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The selection criteria of high-frequency herbs for MS were those with cumulative frequency over 50% among the top-ranked herbs. Results: A total of 25 RCTs were included. In the included RCTs, 33% of the CONSORT items and 21% of the CONSORT-CHM Formulas items were reported. Eligibility title, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, randomized implementation, and blinded description in CONSORT core items were reported by less than 5% of trials. For the CONSORT-CHM Formulas, the source and authentication method of each CHM ingredient was particularly poorly reported. Most studies classified the risk of bias as "unclear" due to insufficient information. The top five most frequently used herbs were, in order, Radix Rehmanniae Preparata, Radix Rehmanniae Recens, Herba Epimedii, Scorpio, and Poria. No serious adverse effect had been reported. Conclusions: The low reporting of CONSORT items and the unclear risk of bias indicate the inadequate quality of RCTs in terms of reporting completeness and result validity. The CONSORT-CHM Formulas appropriately consider the unique characteristics of CHM, including principles, formulas, and Chinese medicinal substances. To improve the quality of RCTs on CHM for MS, researchers should adhere more closely to CONSORT-CHM Formulas guidelines and ensure comprehensive disclosure of all study design elements.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and data synthesis of randomised clinical trials play a crucial role in clinical practice, research, and health policy. Trial sequential analysis can be used in systematic reviews to control type I and type II errors, but methodological errors including lack of protocols and transparency are cause for concern. We assessed the reporting of trial sequential analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision. RESULTS: We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021273811.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This study addresses the need for improved transparency and reproducibility in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) within the field of physical activity (PA) interventions. Despite efforts to promote these practices, there is limited evidence on the adherence to established reporting and methodological standards in published RCTs. The research, part of the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative) in 2020, assessed the methodological standards and reporting quality of RCTs focusing on PA interventions. METHODS: RCTs of PA advice or exercise interventions published in 2020 were selected. Monthly searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE targeting six top-tier exercise science journals. Assessments were conducted by two independent authors, based on 44 items originally from CONSORT and TIDieR reporting guidelines. These items were divided into seven domains: transparency, completeness, participants, intervention, rigor methodology, outcomes and critical analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed using absolute and relative frequencies, and exploratory analysis was done by comparing proportions using the χ2 test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Out of 1,766 RCTs evaluated for eligibility, 53 were included. The median adherence to recommended items across the studies was 30 (18-44) items in individual assessments. Notably, items demonstrating full adherence were related to intervention description, justification, outcome measurement, effect sizes, and statistical analysis. Conversely, the least reported item pertained to mentioning unplanned modifications during trials, appearing in only 11.3% of studies. Among the 53 RCTs, 67.9% reported having a registration, and these registered studies showed higher adherence to assessed items compared to non-registered ones. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, while critical analysis aspects were more comprehensively described, aspects associated with transparency, such as protocol registrations/modifications and intervention descriptions, were reported suboptimally. The findings underscore the importance of promoting resources related to reporting quality and transparent research practices for investigators and editors in the exercise sciences discipline.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for depression. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed and VIP Database for RCTs of acupuncture in treatment of depression. The search time was from the establishment of database to December 1, 2023, and the language restriction was Chinese and English. The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for depression was evaluated using the CONSORT statement, the international standardization for trial reporting, STRICTA, the international standard for clinical trial interventions of acupuncture, and SHARE, the guideline and checklist for reporting sham acupuncture controls. RESULTS: According to the CONSORT statement items, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 54.05% of all of the items for Chinese articles, and there were 8 and 1 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. For the English articles, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 35.14% of all of the items, and there were 3 and 7 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. The reporting rate of 15 items in Chinese and English articles was greater than 50%, e.g. structured abstract, background and purpose. Based on STRICTA criteria, the reporting rate of either Chinese or English articles was relatively high. The items for Chinese articles with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 23.53% of all of the items, and there were 1 and 4 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. For English articles, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 11.76% of all of the items, and there was 1 item with a reporting rate of either 0% or 100%. In compliance with SHARE checklist, the reporting rate was low for either Chinese or English articles. The items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 57.89% of all of the items for Chinese articles, and there were 2 and 0 items with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. For English articles, the items with the reporting rate less than 50% was accounted for 52.63% of all of the items, and there was 1 item with a reporting rate of 0% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The overall reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for depression is low currently. It is urgent to enhance the reporting of the details on sham acupuncture control especially. It is suggested that RCTs should be reported strictly in compliance with the CONSORT statement, STRICTA criteria, and SHARE checklist in the future.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Primary studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are cited as evidence for the guidelines. Given the influence that these trials have on patient care, adherence to standardized protocols for conducting and reporting RCTs is essential. PURPOSE: To evaluate the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Extension for Harms-related reporting of RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the AAOS CPG on the management of ACL tears. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: The reference section of the AAOS guideline for ACL tears was first screened for RCTs cited in the CPG. Next, each RCT was evaluated for adherence to the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Both identification of RCTs and assessment of adherence were performed in a masked and duplicate process. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Extension for Harms items. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the relationship between the year of publication and adherence to CONSORT harms reporting. RESULTS: The sample included 113 RCTs, of which 16 (14.2%) were published before the CONSORT Extension for Harms was implemented in 2004. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 4564 participants, with a mean of 228. None of the included RCTs included all 18 items in the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. The mean number of checklist items reported was 4 (of 18; 22.2%). A moderate, positive, and statistically significant correlation was found between the RCT publication year and the adherence with reporting of the CONSORT Extension for Harms (t111 = 3.54; P < .001) (r = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.47). CONCLUSION: Harms were infrequently reported in RCTs cited as supporting evidence in the AAOS CPG for the management of ACL tears. One encouraging finding was the positive correlation between the year when RCTs were published and how well they adhered to reporting harms. Efforts to improve adverse event reporting are warranted, as RCTs are commonly used to make clinical decisions in orthopaedic surgery.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To record the proportion of data sharing reporting in terms of primary data and/or statistical code of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined. Transparency indicators such as registration or funding statements were assessed. METHODS: We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2023 in journals of high impact of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Oral/Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of RCTs reporting their intent to share or openly shared primary data and we tested for associations with potential predictors. Funding, registration, and statistical code/script sharing practices were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 752 RCTs were included, of which only 119 (15.8%) either openly provided their data or included a statement of intention to share upon request. Only one study openly provided the statistical code underlying the analysis used. RCTs in periodontology more frequently included statements about positive intent to share (57/210;27.1%), followed by Orthodontics (35/157;22.3%). Significant effects of year, dentistry domain and continent of authorship on data sharing practices were identified (p < 0.001 in all cases). There was evidence that registered RCTs had 2.04 times higher odds for intention to share data (95%confidence interval: 1.06, 3.92;p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in oral health RCTs, empirical evidence suggested very low prevalence of positive data sharing practices. Enhancing transparency is pivotal in promoting reproducibility and credibility of research findings. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this empirical report bring attention to key transparency indicators in randomized controlled trials. These largely impact on the credibility and reproducibility of the evidence base for clinical decision making.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society. Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Adverse events suffer from poor reporting within randomised controlled trials, despite them being crucial to the evaluation of a treatment. A recent update to the CONSORT harms checklist aims to improve reporting by providing structure and consistency to the information presented. We propose an extension wherein harms would be reported in conjunction with effectiveness outcome(s) rather than in silo to provide a more complete picture of the evidence acquired within a trial. Benefit-risk methods are designed to simultaneously consider both benefits and risks, and therefore, we believe these methods could be implemented to improve the prominence of adverse events when reporting trials. The aim of this article is to use case studies to demonstrate the practical utility of benefit-risk methods to present adverse events results alongside effectiveness results. Two randomised controlled trials have been selected as case studies, the Option-DM trial and the SANAD II trial. Using a previous review, a shortlist of 17 benefit-risk methods which could potentially be used for reporting RCTs was created. From this shortlist, three benefit-risk methods are applied across the two case studies. We selected these methods for their usefulness to achieve the aim of this paper and which are commonly used in the literature. The methods selected were the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework, net clinical benefit (NCB), and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3 × 3 table. Results using the benefit-risk method added further context and detail to the clinical summaries made from the trials. In the case of the SANAD II trial, the clinicians concluded that despite the primary outcome being improved by the treatment, the increase in adverse events negated the improvement and the treatment was therefore not recommended. The benefit-risk methods applied to this case study outlined the data that this decision was based on in a clear and transparent way. Using benefit-risk methods to report the results of trials can increase the prominence of adverse event results by presenting them alongside the primary efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. This ensures that all the factors which would be used to determine whether a treatment would be recommended are transparent to the reader.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Aims/Background Blended learning has been a commonly adopted teaching mode in the medical education community in recent years. Many studies have shown that the blended learning mode is superior to the traditional teaching mode. Nonetheless, pinpointing the specific advantages provided by blended teaching methods is challenging, since multiple elements influence their effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate the reliability of the conclusions of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on blended learning in medical education by assessing their quality, and to provide suggestions for future related studies. Methods Two investigators searched PUBMED and EMBASE, and assessed RCTs related to medical blended learning published from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2021. The analysis of the overall quality of each report was based on the 2010 consolidated standard of reporting trials (CONSORT) Statement applying a 28-point overall quality score. We also conducted a multivariate assessment including year of publication, region of the trial, journal, impact factor, sample size, and the primary outcome. Results A total of 22 RCTs closely relevant to medical blended learning were eventually selected for study. The results demonstrated that half of the studies failed to explicitly describe at least 34% of the items in the 2010 CONSORT Statement. Medical blended learning is an emerging new teaching mode, with 95.45% of RCTs published since 2010. However, many issues that we consider crucial were not satisfactorily addressed in the selected RCTs. Conclusion Although the 2010 CONSORT Statement was published more than a decade ago, the quality of RCTs remains unsatisfactory. Some important items were inadequately reported in many RCTs such as sample size, blinding, and concealment. We encourage researchers who focus on the effects of blended learning in medical education to incorporate the guidelines in the 2010 CONSORT Statement when designing and conducting relevant research. Researchers, reviewers, and editors also need to work together to improve the quality of relevant RCTs in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 CONSORT Statement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Investigators often conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at multiple centers/sites when determining the effect of a treatment or an intervention. Diversifying recruitment across multiple institutions allows investigators to make recruitment go faster within a shorter timeframe and allows generalizing the study results across diverse populations. Despite having a common study protocol across multiple centers, the eligible participants may be heterogeneous, site policies and practices may vary, and the investigators' experience, training, and expertise may also vary across sites. These factors may contribute to the heterogeneity in effect estimates across centers. As a result, we usually observe some degree of heterogeneity in effect estimates across centers, despite all centers following the same study protocol. During the analysis of such a trial, investigators typically ignore center effects, but some have suggested considering centers as fixed or random effects in the model. It is not clear how considering the effects of centers, either as fixed or random effects, impacts the test of the primary hypothesis. In this article, we first review the practice of accounting for center effects in the analyses of published RCTs and illustrate the extent of heterogeneity observed in a few preexisting multicenter RCTs. To determine the impact of heterogeneity on the test of a primary hypothesis of an RCT, we considered continuous and binary outcomes and the corresponding appropriate model, namely, a simple linear regression model for a continuous outcome and a logistic regression model for the binary outcome. For each model type, we considered three methods: (a) ignore the center effect, (b) account for centers as fixed effects, or (c) account for centers as random effects. Based on simulation studies of these models, we then examine whether considering the center as a fixed or random effect in the model helps to preserve or reduce the type I and type II error rates during the analysis phase of an RCT. Finally, we outline the threshold at which center-level effects are negligible and thus negligible and provide recommendations on when it may be necessary to account for center effects during the analyses of multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated ß = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated ß = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting. CONCLUSION: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

Asunto(s)