A proposal for using benefit-risk methods to improve the prominence of adverse event results when reporting trials.

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.

Exploration and evaluation of reporting quality of randomised controlled trials on blended learning in medical education.

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.

Accounting for center-level effects in multicenter randomized controlled trials.

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.

Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials.

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.

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY): summary of findings and assessment of existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. METHODS: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. RESULTS: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs.

CONSORT statement adherence and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials on deep caries management: a meta-research.

BACKGROUND: Recently, trials have supported changes in deep caries management. However, reporting might lack details, affecting interpretation and implementation. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the adherence to the CONSORT statement and the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on deep caries management published in pediatric dental journals. METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs in six pediatric dental journals between 2010 and 2022, focusing on deep caries lesion management. Adherence to the CONSORT guideline and the risk of bias were assessed using a modified tool with 19 items; each scored from 0 to 2 (maximum of 38 points), and the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool. We performed descriptive and regression analyses (α = 5%). RESULTS: We analyzed 127 RCTs. The mean (standard deviation) CONSORT adherence score was 21.1 (6.7). Notably, 96.1% of the studies received a score of 2 for the "intervention" item, whereas 83.5% scored 0 for the "estimated effect size". The risk of bias assessment revealed that 40.2% of the RCTs were at high risk, 59% were at low risk, and 0.8% were at low risk. RCTs with a high risk of bias had lower CONSORT scores (p<0.001) than those with low or some concerns. RCTs published in journals without the endorsement of the CONSORT statement had lower scores than those in journals with the endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Older RCTs (6-10 years old and more than 10 years old) showed significantly lower CONSORT statement compliance than trials published recently within 5 years. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the CONSORT was relatively low among the investigated RCTs. Moreover, lower adherence to the CONSORT was associated with a higher risk of bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework - DOI ( 10.17605/OSF.IO/V6SYZ ).

Registry-based randomised controlled trials: conduct, advantages and challenges-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Registry-based randomised controlled trials (rRCTs) have been described as pragmatic studies utilising patient data embedded in large-scale registries to facilitate key clinical trial procedures including recruitment, randomisation and the collection of outcome data. Whilst the practice of utilising registries to support the conduct of randomised trials is increasing, the use of the registries within rRCTs is inconsistent. The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the conduct of rRCTs using a patient registry to facilitate trial recruitment and the collection of outcome data, and to discuss the advantages and challenges of rRCTs. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted using five databases from inception to June 2020: PubMed, Embase (through Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL). The search strategy comprised of MESH terms and key words related to rRCTs. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. A risk of bias for each study was completed. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: A total 47,862 titles were screened and 24 rRCTs were included. Eleven rRCTs (45.8%) used more than one registry to facilitate trial conduct. Six rRCTs (25%) randomised participants via a specific randomisation module embedded within a registry. Recruitment ranged between 209 to 106,000 participants. Advantages of rRCTs are recruitment efficiency, shorter trial times, cost effectiveness, outcome data completeness, smaller carbon footprint, lower participant burden and the ability to conduct multiple trials from the same registry. Challenges are data collection/management, quality assurance issues and the timing of informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: Optimising the design of rRCTs is dependent on the capabilities of the registry. New registries should be designed and existing registries reviewed to enable the conduct of rRCTs. At all times, data management and quality assurance of all registry data should be given key consideration. We suggest the inclusion of the term 'registry-based' in the title of all rRCT manuscripts and a clear simple breakdown of the registry-based conduct of the trial in the abstract to facilitate indexing in the major databases.

Quality assessment of paediatric randomized controlled trials published in China from 1999 to 2022: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are usually the basis of evidence-based medicine, but whether the results of RCTs can be correctly translated into clinical practice depends on the quality of the literature reported. In this study, we evaluated the general characteristics and quality of paediatric RCTs published in China to provide evidence for the reporting of paediatric RCTs and their application in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of paediatric RCTs published in paediatric journals in China between January 1, 1999, and December 30, 2022. All RCTs that included children (younger than 18 years old) were retrieved, and the general characteristics of the RCTs were extracted and analysed. The quality of the RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane quality assessment protocol. RESULTS: After screening 20 available paediatric journals, 3545 RCTs were included for analysis. The average annual growth rate of the number of published paediatric RCTs from 1999 to 2022 was 7.8% (P = 0.005, R2 = 0.311). Most of the studies were carried out in East China [1148 (32.4%]; the centres of the RCTs were mainly single-centre [3453 (97.4%], and the interventions were mainly medication [2442 (68.9%)]. Comparing RCTs published in 2017-2022 with RCTs published in 1999-2004, the quality of RCTs significantly improved in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding participants and personnel, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. RCTs published in multiple centres from the Chinese Science Citation Database were identified, and the approval of the ethics committee was of better quality for all the analysed risk of bias items. CONCLUSION: The number and quality of paediatric RCTs reported in China have improved in recent years, but the overall quality was relatively low. Special attention should be given to allocation concealment and blinding outcome assessment, and dropouts, adverse effects and sample size calculations should be reported. Promoting government policies, strengthening the standardization of journal publishing and advancing the registration of clinical trials are feasible measures.

Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent for participation in an RCT is an important ethical and legal requirement. In placebo surgical trials, further issues are raised, and to date, this has not been explored. Patient information leaflets (PILs) are a core component of the informed consent process. This study aimed to investigate the key content of PILs for recently completed placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery, to highlight areas of good practice, identify gaps in information provision for trials of this type and provide recommendations for practice. METHODS: PILs were sought from trials included in a recent systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery. Trial characteristics and data on surgical and placebo interventions under evaluation were extracted. Directed content analysis was applied, informed by published regulatory and good practice guidance on PIL content and existing research on placebo-controlled surgical trials. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of the 62 eligible RCTs, authors of 59 trials were contactable and 14 PILs were received for analysis. At least 50% of all PILs included content on general trial design. Explanations of how the placebo differs or is similar to the surgical intervention (i.e. fidelity) were reported in 6 (43%) of the included PILs. Over half (57%) of the PILs included information on the potential therapeutic benefits of the surgical intervention. One (7%) included information on potential indirect therapeutic benefits from invasive components of the placebo. Five (36%) presented the known risks of the placebo intervention, whilst 8 (57%) presented information on the known risks of the surgical intervention. A range of terms was used across the PILs to describe the placebo component, including 'control', 'mock' and 'sham'. CONCLUSION: Developers of PILs for placebo-controlled surgical trials should carefully consider the use of language (e.g. sham, mock), be explicit about how the placebo differs (or is similar) to the surgical intervention and provide balanced presentations of potential benefits and risks of the surgical intervention separately from the placebo. Further research is required to determine optimal approaches to design and deliver this information for these trials.

Adaptive clinical trials in surgery: A scoping review of methodological and reporting quality.

IMPORTANCE: Adaptive surgical trials are scarce, but adopting these methods may help elevate the quality of surgical research when large-scale RCTs are impractical. OBJECTIVE: Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based healthcare. Despite an increase in the number of RCTs, the number of surgical trials remains unchanged. Adaptive clinical trials can streamline trial design and time to trial reporting. The advantages identified for ACTs may help to improve the quality of future surgical trials. We present a scoping review of the methodological and reporting quality of adaptive surgical trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We performed a search of Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane Collaboration for all adaptive surgical RCTs performed from database inception to October 12, 2023. We included any published trials that had at least one surgical arm. All review and abstraction were performed in duplicate. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2.0 instrument and reporting quality was evaluated using CONSORT ACE 2020. All results were analyzed using descriptive methods. FINDINGS: Of the 1338 studies identified, six trials met inclusion criteria. Trials were performed in cardiothoracic, oral, orthopedic, and urological surgery. The most common type of adaptive trial was group sequential design with pre-specified interim analyses planned for efficacy, futility, and/or sample size re-estimation. Two trials did use statistical simulations. Our risk of bias evaluation identified a high risk of bias in 50% of included trials. Reporting quality was heterogeneous regarding trial design and outcome assessment and details in relation to randomization and blinding concealment. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Surgical trialists should consider implementing adaptive components to help improve patient recruitment and reduce trial duration. Reporting of future adaptive trials must adhere to existing CONSORT ACE 2020 guidelines. Future research is needed to optimize standardization of adaptive methods across medicine and surgery.

The reporting quality and spin of randomized controlled trials of endometriosis pain: Methodological study based on CONSORT extension on abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts regarding patients with endometriosis pelvic pain and investigate the prevalence and characteristics of spin in these abstracts. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were searched for RCT abstracts addressing endometriosis pelvic pain published from January 1st, 2010 to December 1st, 2023.The reporting quality of RCT abstracts was assessed using the CONSORT statement for abstracts. Additionally, spin was evaluated in the results and conclusions section of the abstracts, defined as the misleading reporting of study findings to emphasize the perceived benefits of an intervention or to confound readers from statistically non-significant results. Assessing factors affecting the reporting quality and spin existence, linear and logistic regression was used, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 47 RCT abstracts were included. Out of 16 checklist items, only three items including objective, intervention and conclusions were sufficiently reported in the most abstracts (more than 95%), and none of the abstracts presented precise data as required by the CONSORT-A guidelines. In the reporting quality of material and method section, trial design, type of randomization, the generation of random allocation sequences, the allocation concealment and blinding were most items identified that were suboptimal. The total score for the quality varied between 5 and 15 (mean: 9.59, SD: 3.03, median: 9, IQR: 5). Word count (beta = 0.015, p-value = 0.005) and publishing in open-accessed journals (beta = 2.023, p-value = 0.023) were the significant factors that affecting the reporting quality. Evaluating spin within each included paper, we found that 18 (51.43%) papers had statistically non-significant results. From these studies, 12 (66.66%) had spin in both results and conclusion sections. Furthermore, the spin intensity increased during 2010-2023 and 38.29% of abstracts had spin in both results and conclusion sections. CONCLUSION: Overall poor adherence to CONSORT-A was observed, with spin detected in several RCTs featuring non-significant primary endpoints in obstetrics and gynecology literature.

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Accuracy of Event Rate and Effect Size Estimation in Major Cardiovascular Trials: A Systematic Review.

Importance: For the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), estimation of the expected event rate and effect size of an intervention is needed to calculate the sample size. Overestimation may lead to an underpowered trial. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of published estimates of event rate and effect size in contemporary cardiovascular RCTs. Evidence Review: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE for multicenter cardiovascular RCTs associated with MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms for cardiovascular diseases published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or the Lancet between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Identified trials underwent abstract review; eligible trials then underwent full review, and those with insufficiently reported data were excluded. Data were extracted from the original publication or the study protocol, and a random-effects model was used for data pooling. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline. The primary outcome was the accuracy of event rate and effect size estimation. Accuracy was determined by comparing the observed event rate in the control group and the effect size with their hypothesized values. Linear regression was used to determine the association between estimation accuracy and trial characteristics. Findings: Of the 873 RCTs identified, 374 underwent full review and 30 were subsequently excluded, resulting in 344 trials for analysis. The median observed event rate was 9.0% (IQR, 4.3% to 21.4%), which was significantly lower than the estimated event rate of 11.0% (IQR, 6.0% to 25.0%) with a median deviation of -12.3% (95% CI, -16.4% to -5.6%; P < .001). More than half of the trials (196 [61.1%]) overestimated the expected event rate. Accuracy of event rate estimation was associated with a higher likelihood of refuting the null hypothesis (0.13 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.25]; P = .03). The median observed effect size in superiority trials was 0.91 (IQR, 0.74 to 0.99), which was significantly lower than the estimated effect size of 0.72 (IQR, 0.60 to 0.80), indicating a median overestimation of 23.1% (95% CI, 17.9% to 28.3%). A total of 216 trials (82.1%) overestimated the effect size. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of contemporary cardiovascular RCTs, event rates of the primary end point and effect sizes of an intervention were frequently overestimated. This overestimation may have contributed to the inability to adequately test the trial hypothesis.

Analysis of core outcome set reporting in coronary intervention trials.

BACKGROUND: This paper will focus on outcome reporting within percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials. A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes that are recommended to be reported in every clinical trial. Using a COS can help to ensure that all relevant outcomes are consistently reported across clinical trials. In 2018, the European Society of Cardiology outlined the only COS published for PCI trials. METHODS: We searched the literature for all randomised controlled trials published between 2014 and 2022. PCI trials included were late-phase trials and must investigate coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of trials that reported all of the COS-defined outcomes within their publication as either a primary, secondary or safety endpoint. The secondary outcomes included; the number of primary outcomes reported per study, the proportion of studies which use patient and public involvement (PPI) during trial design, outcome variability and outcome consistency. RESULTS: 9580 trials were screened and 115 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our study demonstrated that 55% (34/62) of PCI trials used a COS when it was available, compared with 40% (21/53) before the availability of a PCI COS set, p=0.121. Fewer primary outcomes were reported after the implementation of the COS, 2 compared with 2.3, p=0.014. There was no difference in the use of PPI between either group. There was a higher level of variability in outcomes reported before the availability of the COS, while the consistency of outcome reporting remained similar. CONCLUSION: The use of a COS in PCI trials is low. This study provides evidence that there still is a lack of awareness of the COS among those who design clinical trials. We also presented the inconsistency and heterogenicity in reporting clinical trial outcomes. Finally, there was a clear lack of PPI utilisation in PCI trials.

Reporting of Complications in Rhinoplasty Randomized Controlled Trials: An Analysis Using the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the completeness of adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized control trials (RCTs) focused on rhinoplasty, using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension for Harms checklist. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was employed to review RCTs related to rhinoplasty published between January 1, 2005, and January 28, 2022. SETTING: The study analyzed clinical trials on rhinoplasty retrieved from PubMed. METHODS: We performed a comprehension search on PubMed, blind and duplicate screening, and data extraction. Adherence to the 18 recommendations of the CONSORT Extension for Harms was evaluated, with 1 point assigned for each adhered item. Percent adherence was calculated based on the 18 points, taking into account the multiple subcategories within some recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Our search returned 240 articles, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. No RCTs adhered to all 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items. Twenty-six (26/56, 46.4%) adhered to ≥50% of the items, and 30 (30/56, 53.6%) adhered to ≥33.3% of the items. Seven (7/56, 12.5%) RCTs adhered to no items. Across all RCTs, the average number of CONSORT-Harms items adhered to was 7.2 (7.2/18, 40.0%). The most adhered to item was item 10. Discussion balanced with regard to efficacy and AEs (80.4%, [70.0-90.8]). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the inadequacy of AE reporting in rhinoplasty RCTs according to CONSORT-Harms guidelines. Urgent efforts are required to bridge this reporting gap and enhance transparency in surgical research, ultimately safeguarding patient well-being.

Reporting quality of heart failure randomized controlled trials 2000-2020: Temporal trends in adherence to CONSORT criteria.

AIM: Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform HF policy and practice, but the accurate interpretation of results is contingent on clear and transparent reporting. The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement serves as a guide to RCT reporting. We evaluated the quality of reporting in HF RCTs in high-impact journals by assessing their adherence to CONSORT. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for HF RCTs published in high-impact journals 2000-2020. We assessed the proportion of CONSORT criteria that individual HF RCTs adhered to, and used the Jonckheere-Terpstra test to examine temporal trends in adherence. Multivariable linear regression explored the association between trial characteristics and adherence to CONSORT. Primary analysis assessed adherence to CONSORT 2010 update. A sensitivity analysis assessed adherence to the original (1996) CONSORT criteria. Among 221 RCTs analysed, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) adherence was suboptimal overall (mean [SD] adherence 69.7 [11.5]%) (5513/7913 criteria), with a temporal increase in adherence over the 20-year period (p < 0.001). Factors associated with adherence included publication after versus during/before 2010 (ß = 10.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.64-12.70; p < 0.001); two-group parallel individual-level randomization versus other (including multi-group or cluster randomization) (ß = 5.81, 95% CI 2.88-8.73; p < 0.001); and multicentre versus single-centre trials (ß = 7.26, 95% CI 3.25-11.27; p < 0.001). There was no difference in trial adherence to the updated CONSORT (2010) versus the original (1996) CONSORT criteria, and temporal trends in adherence to both sets of criteria were similar, likely due to overlap between the two sets of criteria. Trials with greater adherence to CONSORT were published in higher impact factor journals, with a positive correlation (r = 0.312; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting in HF RCTs, as measured by CONSORT adherence, has improved over time but remains suboptimal.

Statistical techniques to assess publication integrity in groups of randomized trials: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe statistical tools available for assessing publication integrity of groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Narrative review. RESULTS: Freely available statistical tools have been developed that compare the observed distributions of baseline variables with the expected distributions that would occur if successful randomization occurred. For continuous variables, the tools assess baseline means, baseline P values, and the occurrence of identical means and/or standard deviation. For categorical variables, they assess baseline P values, frequency counts for individual or all variables, numbers of trial participants randomized or withdrawing, and compare reported with independently calculated P values. The tools have been used to identify publication integrity concerns in RCTs from individual groups, and performed at an acceptable level in discriminating intentionally fabricated baseline summary data from genuine RCTs. The tools can be used when concerns have been raised about RCT(s) from an individual/group and when the whole body of their work is being examined, when conducting systematic reviews, and could be adapted to aid screening of RCTs at journal submission. CONCLUSION: Statistical tools are useful for the assessment of publication integrity of groups of RCTs.

Poor reporting limited consideration of EDI in the Australian guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Actively addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare guidelines provides an important avenue ensure that individuals and communities receive high-quality healthcare that meets their needs. In 2020, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was charged with developing Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 (the Guidelines). It was intended that the Guidelines would consider the biological and social determinants of health (BSDH) underpinning evidence-based recommendations for of the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this paper is to describe the evidence available on BSDH that is reported in published trials of disease-modifying therapies for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Published papers of randomized controlled trials that informed clinical recommendations (for and against drug therapies for COVID-19) in the Guidelines were reviewed retrospectively using a case series design. We extracted reported characteristics relating to BSDH. These included age, sex, gender, geographical location, ethnicity (including indigenous), disability, migrant status, income, education, employment, and social support. A descriptive analysis was conducted to illustrate the characteristics available for use in guideline development. RESULTS: A total of 115 peer-reviewed papers describing randomized control trials of drug interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were included. BSDH characteristics were poorly reported. Geographical location of the study was the only category reported in all papers. While age and sex were reported in most papers (n = 109 and 108, respectively), ethnicity was reported in only one-third of papers (n = 40), social support was reported in only three papers, and employment in one paper. No paper reported on gender, disability, migrant status, income, or education. CONCLUSION: Consideration of EDI issues is a crucial component of guideline development. Although these issues were widely recognized to impact on health outcomes from COVID-19, reporting of these characteristics was poor in COVID trials. Urgent action is needed to improve reporting of EDI characteristics if they are to be meaningfully considered in guideline processes, and health inequity is overcome.