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.

Accuracy of Cardiovascular Trial Outcome Ascertainment and Treatment Effect Estimates from Routine Health Data: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Registry-based randomized controlled trials allow for outcome ascertainment using routine health data (RHD). While this method provides a potential solution to the rising cost and complexity of clinical trials, comparative analyses of outcome ascertainment by clinical end point committee (CEC) adjudication compared with RHD sources are sparse. Among cardiovascular trials, we set out to systematically compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and estimated randomized treatment effects ascertained from RHD versus traditional clinical evaluation and adjudication. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1976 to August 2020) for studies where outcome ascertainment was performed by both RHD and CEC adjudication to compare the incidence of cardiovascular events and treatment effects. We derived ratios of hazard ratios to compare treatment effects from RHD and CEC adjudication. We pooled ratios of hazard ratios using an inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies (1988-2020; 32 156 patients) involving 10 randomized control trials compared outcome ascertainment with RHD and CEC in patients with or at risk of cardiovascular disease. There was a high degree of agreement and interrater reliability between CEC and RHD outcome determination for all-cause mortality (agreement percentage: 98.4%-100% and κ: 0.95-1.0) and cardiovascular mortality (agreement percentage: 97.8%-99.9% and κ: 0.66-0.99). For myocardial infarction, the κ values ranged from 0.67-0.98, and for stroke the values ranged from 0.52-0.89. In contrast, the κ value for peripheral artery disease was low (κ: 0.27). There was little difference in the randomized treatment effect derived from CEC and RHD ascertainment of events based on the ratios of hazard ratio, with pooled ratios of hazard ratios ranging from 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63-1.39) for cardiovascular mortality to 1.27 (95% CI, 0.67-2.41) for stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome ascertainment using retrospectively acquired RHD displayed high levels of agreement with CEC adjudication for identifying all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Importantly, cardiovascular treatment effects in randomized control trials determined from RHD and CEC resulted in similar point estimates. Overall, our review supports the use of RHD as a potential alternative source for clinical outcome ascertainment in cardiovascular trials. Validation studies with prospectively planned linkage are warranted.

Systematic Review: The Measurement Properties of the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised in Adolescents With Major Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise existing evidence of the measurement properties of the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). The CDRS-R is the most commonly used scale in adolescent depression research, yet was originally designed for use in children 6 to 12 years old. METHOD: Seven databases were searched for studies that evaluated the measurement properties of the CDRS-R in adolescents (ages 12-18 years). Of 65 studies screened by full-text, 6 were included. Measurement properties were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. The COSMIN minimum requirements for recommending the use of an outcome measurement instrument are (1) evidence for sufficient content validity (any level of evidence), and (2) at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. RESULTS: Four studies assessed an English-language version of the CDRS-R; the other 2 assessed German and Korean versions, respectively. No study assessed content validity, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, or measurement error of the CDRS-R in adolescents with MDD. Low-quality evidence was found for sufficient construct validity (n = 4 studies) and responsiveness (n = 2 studies) assessed via comparator instruments. Very-low-quality evidence was found for sufficient interrater reliability (n = 2 studies). The results for structural validity (n = 3 studies) and internal consistency (n = 5 studies) were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: It remains unclear whether the CDRS-R appropriately measures depressive symptom severity in adolescent MDD. Before use of the CDRS-R in adolescent MDD research can be recommended, evidence of sufficient psychometric properties in adolescents with MDD is needed.

Attitudes and experience of urology trainees in interpreting prostate magnetic resonance imaging.

INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has resulted in accurate prostate cancer localization and image-guided targeted sampling for biopsy. Despite its more recent uptake, knowledge gaps in interpretation and reporting exist. Our objective was to determine the need for an educational intervention among urology residents working with mpMRIs. METHODS: We administered an anonymous, cross-sectional, self-report questionnaire to a convenience sample of urology residents in U.S. and Canadian training programs. The survey included both open- and closed-ended questions employing a five-point Likert scale. It was designed to assess familiarity, exposure, experience, and comfort with interpretation of mpMRI. RESULTS: Fifty-three surveys were completed by residents in postgraduate years (PGY) 1-5 and of these, only 12 (23%) reported any formal training in mpMRI interpretation. Most residents' responses demonstrated significant experience with prostate biopsies, as well as familiarity with reviewing mpMRI for these patients. However, mean (± standard deviation [SD]) Likert responses suggested a relatively poor understanding of the components of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 scoring for T2-weighted films (2.45±1.01), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) films (2.26±0.90), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) films (2.21±0.99). Similar disagreement scores were observed for questions around interpretation of the different functional techniques of MRI images. Residents reported strong interest (4.21±0.91) in learning opportunities to enhance their ability to interpret mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS: While mpMRI of the prostate is a tool frequently used by care teams in teaching centers to identify suspicious prostate cancer lesions, there remain knowledge gaps in the ability of trainees to interpret images and understand PI-RADS v2 scoring. Online modules were suggested to balance the needs of trainee education with the residency workflow.

Systematic Review of Sex-Specific Reporting of Data: Cholinesterase Inhibitor Example.

OBJECTIVES: To improve the value of research for older adults, we examine sex-specific reporting of data from drug trials for the management of dementia. These data are important because they may influence considerations ranging from the health of populations to shared decision-making by individual patient and caregiver about the risk and benefit of a drug therapy. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors (i.e., donepezil, rivastigmine, or galantamine) with clinical outcomes were identified from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Sex-specific data were extracted from nine sections (title, abstract, introduction, methods, outcomes, results, discussion, limitations, and conclusion). Among the donepezil trials only, more detailed harms data were obtained. FINDINGS: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating 15,971 participants (9,103 (57%) female). Trials were highly cited (median citations 158, interquartile range 62-441) and published in high impact journals (median impact factor 7.4, interquartile range 3.4-8.2). Sex was not mentioned in the title, introduction, limitations, or conclusion section of any trial. Only three trials (9%) mentioned sex in the abstract (all as a demographic characteristic), and 8 (24%) in the methods. Almost all (32 (97%)) trials mentioned sex in the results as a demographic variable. One trial reported a sex difference for a secondary outcome. Among the 16 trials studying donepezil, adverse events were frequently reported and often dose-related. No trial provided sex-specific reporting of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There is an almost complete lack of sex-specific reporting of data in clinical trials for dementia drug therapies, and no sex-specific reporting of adverse events. Sex-specific reporting of data should be required in drug trials to increase research value and ultimately inform more tailored prescribing for older adults.