Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Implications for research (IfR) sections are an important part of systematic reviews (SRs) to inform health care researchers and policy makers. PRISMA 2020 recommends reporting IfR, while Cochrane Reviews require a separate chapter on IfR. However, it is unclear to what extent SRs discuss IfR. We aimed i) to assess whether SRs include an IfR statement and ii) to evaluate which elements informed IfR statements. METHODS: We conducted a meta-research study based on SRs of interventions in advanced cancer patients from a previous project (CRD42019134904). As suggested in the Cochrane Handbook, we assessed if the following predefined variables were referred to in IfR statements: patient, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) and study design; concepts underlying Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias. Data were independently extracted by three reviewers after piloting the data extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved in weekly in-depth discussions. RESULTS: We included 261 SRs. The majority evaluated a pharmacological intervention (n = 244, 93.5%); twenty-nine were Cochrane Reviews (11.1%). Four out of five SRs included an IfR statement (n = 210, 80.5%). IfR statements commonly addressed 'intervention' (n = 121, 57.6%), 'patient ' (n = 113, 53.8%), and 'study design' (n = 107, 51.0%). The most frequent PICO and study design combinations were 'patient and intervention ' (n = 71, 33.8%) and 'patient, intervention and study design ' (n = 34, 16.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used for informing IfR recommendations: 'risk of bias ' (n = 2, 1.0%), and 'imprecision ' (n = 1, 0.5%), 'inconsistency ' (n = 1, 0.5%). Additional elements informing IfR were considerations on cost effectiveness (n = 9, 4.3%), reporting standards (n = 4, 1.9%), and individual patient data meta-analysis (n = 4, 1.9%). CONCLUSION: Although about 80% of SRs included an IfR statement, the reporting of PICO elements varied across SRs. Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used to derive IfR. Further work needs to assess the generalizability beyond SRs in advanced cancer patients. We suggest that more specific guidance on which and how IfR elements to report in SRs of interventions needs to be developed. Utilizing PICO elements and concepts underlying GRADE according to the Cochrane Handbook to state IfR seems to be a reasonable approach in the interim. REGISTRATION: CRD42019134904.

Impact of investigator initiated trials and industry sponsored trials on medical practice (IMPACT): rationale and study design.

BACKGROUND: The German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial's impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort. METHODS: The research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov . Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication's target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials. RESULTS: We included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.

[Risk of bias in controlled clinical trials]. / Bias in kontrollierten Studien.

Results from clinical studies are often subject to the risk of bias (deviation from the truth, systematic error). Therefore, a critical appraisal of studies provides a useful strategy in evidence-based healthcare to safeguard against wrong decisions and resulting in overtreatment or undertreatment. This article explains the frequently encountered types of bias, differentiates between them and provides strategies for avoidance of systematic errors. In addition, the two established Cochrane tools with which the risk of bias can be assessed in randomized and non-randomized studies are presented. To highlight the most important components of these tools for bias assessment, examples of randomization, confounding, blinding, completeness of data and selective reporting are provided. Finally, it is shown that bias should not be confused with other study limitations, such as external validity and imprecision.

[Risk of bias in controlled clinical trials]. / Bias in kontrollierten Studien.

Results from clinical studies are often subject to the risk of bias (deviation from the truth, systematic error). Therefore, a critical appraisal of studies provides a useful strategy in evidence-based healthcare to safeguard against wrong decisions and resulting in overtreatment or undertreatment. This article explains the frequently encountered types of bias, differentiates between them and provides strategies for avoidance of systematic errors. In addition, the two established Cochrane tools with which the risk of bias can be assessed in randomized and non-randomized studies are presented. To highlight the most important components of these tools for bias assessment, examples of randomization, confounding, blinding, completeness of data and selective reporting are provided. Finally, it is shown that bias should not be confused with other study limitations, such as external validity and imprecision.

[Systematic literature search in PubMed : A short introduction]. / Systematische Literaturrecherche in PubMed : Eine Kurzanleitung.

In order to identify current (and relevant) evidence for a specific clinical question within the unmanageable amount of information available, solid skills in performing a systematic literature search are essential. An efficient approach is to search a biomedical database containing relevant literature citations of study reports. In this article, we explain step by step how to perform a systematic literature search via PubMed (MEDLINE) by means of an example research question in the field of ophthalmology. First, we demonstrate how to translate the clinical problem into a well-framed and searchable research question, how to identify relevant search terms and how to conduct a text word search and a search with keywords in MeSH terms. We then show how to limit the number of search results if the search yields too many irrelevant hits and how to increase the number in the case of too few citations. Finally, we summarize all essential principles that guide a literature search via PubMed.

[Systematic literature search in PubMed : A short introduction]. / Systematische Literaturrecherche in PubMed : Eine Kurzanleitung.

In order to identify current (and relevant) evidence for a specific clinical question within the unmanageable amount of information available, solid skills in performing a systematic literature search are essential. An efficient approach is to search a biomedical database containing relevant literature citations of study reports. The best known database is MEDLINE, which is searchable for free via the PubMed interface. In this article, we explain step by step how to perform a systematic literature search via PubMed by means of an example research question in the field of ophthalmology. First, we demonstrate how to translate the clinical problem into a well-framed and searchable research question, how to identify relevant search terms and how to conduct a text word search and a search with keywords in medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. We then show how to limit the number of search results if the search yields too many irrelevant hits and how to increase the number in the case of too few citations. Finally, we summarize all essential principles that guide a literature search via PubMed.

[Systematic literature search in PubMed : A short introduction]. / Systematische Literaturrecherche in PubMed : Eine Kurzanleitung.

In order to identify current (and relevant) evidence for a specific clinical question within the unmanageable amount of information available, solid skills in performing a systematic literature search are essential. An efficient approach is to search a biomedical database containing relevant literature citations of study reports. In this article, we explain step by step how to perform a systematic literature search via PubMed (MEDLINE) by means of an example research question in the field of ophthalmology. First, we demonstrate how to translate the clinical problem into a well-framed and searchable research question, how to identify relevant search terms and how to conduct a text word search and a search with keywords in MeSH terms. We then show how to limit the number of search results if the search yields too many irrelevant hits and how to increase the number in the case of too few citations. Finally, we summarize all essential principles that guide a literature search via PubMed.

[Systematic literature search in PubMed : A short introduction]. / Systematische Literaturrecherche in PubMed : Eine Kurzanleitung.

In order to identify current (and relevant) evidence for a specific clinical question within the unmanageable amount of information available, solid skills in performing a systematic literature search are essential. An efficient approach is to search a biomedical database containing relevant literature citations of study reports. In this article, we explain step by step how to perform a systematic literature search via PubMed (MEDLINE) by means of an example research question in the field of ophthalmology. First, we demonstrate how to translate the clinical problem into a well-framed and searchable research question, how to identify relevant search terms and how to conduct a text word search and a search with keywords in MeSH terms. We then show how to limit the number of search results if the search yields too many irrelevant hits and how to increase the number in the case of too few citations. Finally, we summarize all essential principles that guide a literature search via PubMed.

[Systematic literature search in PubMed : A short introduction]. / Systematische Literaturrecherche in PubMed : Eine Kurzanleitung.

In order to identify current (and relevant) evidence for a specific clinical question within the unmanageable amount of information available, solid skills in performing a systematic literature search are essential. An efficient approach is to search a biomedical database containing relevant literature citations of study reports. In this article, we explain step by step how to perform a systematic literature search via PubMed (MEDLINE) by means of an example research question in the field of ophthalmology. First, we demonstrate how to translate the clinical problem into a well-framed and searchable research question, how to identify relevant search terms and how to conduct a text word search and a search with keywords in MeSH terms. We then show how to limit the number of search results if the search yields too many irrelevant hits and how to increase the number in the case of too few citations. Finally, we summarize all essential principles that guide a literature search via PubMed.

[Systematic literature search in PubMed : A short introduction]. / Systematische Literaturrecherche in PubMed : Eine Kurzanleitung.

In order to identify current (and relevant) evidence for a specific clinical question within the unmanageable amount of information available, solid skills in performing a systematic literature search are essential. An efficient approach is to search a biomedical database containing relevant literature citations of study reports. In this article, we explain step by step how to perform a systematic literature search via PubMed (MEDLINE) by means of an example research question in the field of ophthalmology. First, we demonstrate how to translate the clinical problem into a well-framed and searchable research question, how to identify relevant search terms and how to conduct a text word search and a search with keywords in MeSH terms. We then show how to limit the number of search results if the search yields too many irrelevant hits and how to increase the number in the case of too few citations. Finally, we summarize all essential principles that guide a literature search via PubMed.

[Comment on the TIDier Checklist]. / Kommentar zur TIDieR Checkliste.

This comment focuses on the need for and possible impact of the TIDieR reporting guideline.

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS: Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

[Studies and Publication Practice in Pediatric Hematology and Oncology in Germany--An Analysis of the Period 1970-2006]. / Studien und Publikationspraxis in der PädiatrischenHämatologie und Onkologie in Deutschland--Analyseder Jahre 1970­2006.

BACKGROUND: Several therapy optimization studies (TOSs) for the treatment of hematologic and oncologic disorders in children and adolescents have been conducted in Germany. The publication of research results is necessary to ensure that future studies are well designed and based on relevant and unanswered questions. This retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the study- and publication practice in this field. METHODS: All study protocols in the field of the pediatric oncology and hematology in Germany were collected. Relevant data from study protocols were extracted, beginning with 1) general information about the study protocol, and 2) information about each methodological trial. In a second step, the publication practice was characterized by searching in electronic databases and by contacting principal investigators. Relevant Data of each publication was extracted. RESULTS: The research activity has increased significantly in the past few years. The found publication rate of 85% represents an outstanding publication practice. Additionally, German, as being the main publication language a few decades ago, has been almost completely replaced with English. An acceptable methodological conduct was observed in the analyzed study protocols. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Studies have been principally based on the concept of TOS, without considering a detailed breakdown into each methodological trial. A markedly subdivision of studies into methodologically identifiable trials would allow a clear definition of their parameters, while increasing transparency of the study conduct and its results.

[Clinical trials registers. Introduction to the topic and backgrounds]. / Register für klinische Studien. Einführung in das Thema und Hintergründe.

It is a moral responsibility of those performing clinical studies towards patients, funding organizations, the scientific community and towards the general public to publish the results of clinical trials. Under-reporting of clinical trials with null or even negative results as well as over-reporting of trials with positive results can lead to a biased assessment of (new) treatments, which leads to overestimation of potential benefits and underestimation of potential risks. Comprehensive, publicly accessible clinical trial registries are now widely accepted as an essential tool to fill the information gap. Here, the background for implementing a clinical trials register in Germany is described, whereby publication bias, in particular, is addressed.

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others.

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

[Randomized controlled and controlled clinical trials in German-language ophthalmological journals]. / Randomisierte kontrollierte und kontrollierte klinische Studien in deutschsprachigen, ophthalmologischen Fachzeitschriften.

BACKGROUND: The medical database MEDLINE contains only a part of all published randomized controlled (RCTs) and controlled clinical (CCTs) trials. The validity of a systematic review depends on the complete consideration of all studies pertaining to a clinical question. Therefore, a manual systematic search in medical journals is mandatory. METHODS: The last 30 years of the three peer-reviewed German-language ophthalmological journals Der Ophthalmologe, Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde, and Spektrum der Augenheilkunde were retrospectively searched for controlled trials. All identified RCTs and CCTs were classified according to their ophthalmological subspecialty. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the CONSORT Statement. Moreover, a comparison was made of how many of the studies identified by hand searching are registered in MEDLINE and correctly classified as RCTs/CCTs. RESULTS: In total 984 RCTs and CCTs were identified; 62% of the trials were from the subspecialty anterior eye segment, 14% belonged to the subspecialty posterior eye segment, and 18% belonged to glaucoma. A sample size calculation was reported in less than 2% of the full-text publications and 34% reported a blinded study design. A randomization process was described in 23% of the RCTs. Most controlled trials were published in the 1990s in all three journals. From 1998 onward, there was a decrease in the number of published controlled trials in the reviewed German literature. About 63% of the studies registered in MEDLINE are correctly classified. CONCLUSION: In the specialty of ophthalmology there are many important studies which provide basic information for compilation of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. However, many of the identified clinical trials in German-language journals show deficiencies in the study quality. Only a part of the identified controlled trials are correctly classified in MEDLINE. Therefore, a retrospective registration is essential to complete the electronic database in ophthalmology.

[Systematic literature search in PubMed : A short introduction]. / Systematische Literaturrecherche in PubMed : Eine Kurzanleitung.

In order to identify current (and relevant) evidence for a specific clinical question within the unmanageable amount of information available, solid skills in performing a systematic literature search are essential. An efficient approach is to search a biomedical database containing relevant literature citations of study reports. The best known database is MEDLINE, which is searchable for free via the PubMed interface. In this article, we explain step by step how to perform a systematic literature search via PubMed by means of an example research question in the field of ophthalmology. First, we demonstrate how to translate the clinical problem into a well-framed and searchable research question, how to identify relevant search terms and how to conduct a text word search and a search with keywords in medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. We then show how to limit the number of search results if the search yields too many irrelevant hits and how to increase the number in the case of too few citations. Finally, we summarize all essential principles that guide a literature search via PubMed.

[Hand searching for controlled clinical trials in German surgical journals. A contribution to evidence-based surgery]. / Handsuche nach kontrollierten klinischen Studien in deutschsprachigen chirurgischen Zeitschriften. Ein Beitrag zur evidenzbasierten Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: The identification of all available and relevant study reports is mandatory for a comprehensive assessment of randomised (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in systematic reviews. Incomplete compilation of health care journals in electronic databases and incorrect indexing of the studies impair the result of a systematic literature search. An additional search in medical journals that are not listed in electronic databases can obtain higher search precision. METHODS: In the hand searching project of the Cochrane Collaboration, in Germany 14 surgical journals were searched manually for RCTs and CCTs. The identified study reports were compared with Medline records, and the publication frequency was analysed. The study reports were published in the Cochrane Library and are henceforth available for inclusion in systematic reviews. RESULTS: Four hundred (77%) of the 519 published volumes in the 14 surgical journals were searched for RCTs and CCTs. Of the 1152 controlled trials (670 RCTs and 482 CCTs) identified, 674 (58%) were not included in Medline. CONCLUSIONS: The gap between the number of hand search results and the number of Medline indexed RCTs and CCTs is also reflected in other special medical fields. To ensure completeness of the literature compilation, the hand searching project should be continued.

[Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials in a German surgical journal]. / Randomisierte kontrollierte und kontrollierte klinische Studien in der Zeitschrift "Der Chirurg".

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive identification of relevant literature is mandatory for valid assessment of the effectiveness of surgical interventions. Thus, electronic database searches are often complemented by handsearching of relevant surgical journals. The aim of this study was to assess the quantity and quality of randomized controlled (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in the German surgical journal Der Chirurg. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative assessment was made after handsearching of studies published from 1948 to 2005 in Der Chirurg. Systematic database search (MEDLINE) was used for comparison of RCTs published in Der Chirurg and international surgical journals. RESULTS: Overall, 112 controlled clinical trials (90 RCTs, 22 CCTs) were identified by handsearching. The implementation of sample size calculation was reported in 12 of 90 (13%) RCTs. Forty-six (51%) did not specify the randomization process, and five (6%) incorporated the "intention to treat" principle in their analyses. After 2000, RCTs were published in declining frequency in Der Chirurg, whereas international surgical journals printed stable quantities of these studies. CONCLUSION: Improving the prerequisites of patient-centered clinical research in surgery, rigorous implementation of principles of the CONSORT statement, and modified publication strategies may improve the quality and quantity of reports on clinical studies in Germany.