Heterogeneity and Gaps in Reporting Primary Outcomes From Neonatal Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and application of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary outcomes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of primary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials. METHODS: Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed. RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity. CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.

Strengthening Reporting of Neonatal Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications. METHODS: Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports. RESULTS: Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.

The impact of music, play, and pet therapies in managing pain and anxiety in paediatric patients in hospital: a rapid systematic review.

Background: Hospitalized children face pain and anxiety associated with the environment and procedures. Objective: This review aimed to assess the impact of music, play, pet and art therapies on pain and anxiety in hospitalized paediatric patients. RCTs assessing the impact of music, play, pet, and/or art therapies on pain and/or anxiety in hospitalized paediatric patients were eligible. Methods: Database searching and citation screening was completed to identify studies. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize study findings and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Of the 761 documents identified, 29 were included spanning music (n = 15), play (n = 12), and pet (n = 3) therapies. Results: A high certainty of evidence supported play in reducing pain and moderate certainty for music and pet. A moderate certainty of evidence supported music and play in reducing anxiety. Conclusion: Complementary therapies utilized alongside conventional medical treatment may mitigate pain and anxiety in hospitalized paediatric patients.

Paper I: Heterogeneous use of registry data for participant identification and primary outcome ascertainment is found in registry-based randomized controlled trials: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) have potential to address limitations of traditional clinical trials. To describe their current use, information on planned and published RRCTs was identified and synthesized. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review of published RRCT protocols and reports was conducted. Articles published between 2010 and 2021 identified from electronic database searching, a recent review of RRCTs, and targeted searching for recent RRCT protocols (2018-2021) were screened. Data on trial data sources, types of primary outcomes, and how these primary outcomes were described, selected, and reported were extracted. RESULTS: Ninety RRCT articles (77 reports; 13 protocols) were included. Forty nine (54%) used or planned to rely on registry data for their trial, 26 (29%) used both registry and additional data, and 15 (17%) used the registry solely for recruitment. Primary outcomes were routinely collected from the registry for 66 articles (73%). Only 28 articles (31%) described any methods to promote outcome data quality during or after data collection. Core outcome sets were not used in any of the trials. CONCLUSION: With improvements in registry design, outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, future RRCTs may deliver on promises of efficient, high-quality trials that address clinically relevant questions.

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries.

OBJECTIVES: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs. CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

Pediatric core outcome sets had deficiencies and lacked child and family input: A methodological review.

OBJECTIVES: The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD), published in 2017, contains 11 standards (12 criteria) describing minimum design criteria for core outcome set (COS) development. We aimed to identify and appraise all pediatric COS published prior to COS-STAD, and assess methods of child and family involvement in their development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This methodological review included documents that described the development of pediatric COS up to and including 2017. Reviewers independently assessed each COS against COS-STAD criteria, and methods of involvement were synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 56 pediatric COS were identified, meeting a median of five COS-STAD criteria. Nearly all met criteria on COS scope specification for setting, health condition, and population; 41% met criteria for intervention. Standards were more often met for the involvement of researchers/health professionals (64%) than for patients or their representatives (29%). Few met standards for achieving COS consensus (4-23%). Methods of child and family engagement varied and were limited. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of pediatric COS developed prior to COS-STAD recommendations show gaps in design methodology. Updated and newly developed pediatric COS would benefit from the inclusion of the child and family voice, implementing a priori criteria for COS consensus, and clear reporting.

Pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions for individuals with cerebral palsy and dystonia: a systematic review update and meta-analysis.

AIM: To update a systematic review of evidence published up to December 2015 for pharmacological/neurosurgical interventions among individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and dystonia. METHOD: Searches were updated (January 2016 to May 2020) for oral baclofen, trihexyphenidyl, benzodiazepines, clonidine, gabapentin, levodopa, botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT), intrathecal baclofen (ITB), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), and from database inception for medical cannabis. Eligible studies included at least five individuals with CP and dystonia and reported on dystonia, goal achievement, motor function, pain/comfort, ease of caregiving, quality of life (QoL), or adverse events. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Nineteen new studies met inclusion criteria (two trihexyphenidyl, one clonidine, two BoNT, nine ITB, six DBS), giving a total of 46 studies (four randomized, 42 non-randomized) comprising 915 participants when combined with those from the original systematic review. Very low certainty evidence supported improved dystonia (clonidine, ITB, DBS) and goal achievement (clonidine, BoNT, ITB, DBS). Low to very low certainty evidence supported improved motor function (DBS), pain/comfort (clonidine, BoNT, ITB, DBS), ease of caregiving (clonidine, BoNT, ITB), and QoL (ITB, DBS). Trihexyphenidyl, clonidine, BoNT, ITB, and DBS may increase adverse events. No studies were identified for benzodiazepines, gabapentin, oral baclofen, and medical cannabis. INTERPRETATION: Evidence evaluating the use of pharmacological and neurosurgical management options for individuals with CP and dystonia is limited to between low and very low certainty. What this paper adds Meta-analysis suggests that intrathecal baclofen (ITB) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) may improve dystonia and pain. Meta-analysis suggests that DBS may improve motor function. Clonidine, botulinum neurotoxin, ITB, and DBS may improve achievement of individualized goals. ITB and DBS may improve quality of life. No direct evidence is available for oral baclofen, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, or medical cannabis.