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.

[Assessment of risk of bias in controlled studies]. / Bewertung des Risikos für Bias in kontrollierten Studien.

BACKGROUND: Practicing physicians are faced with many medical decisions daily. These are mainly influenced by personal experience but should also consider patient preferences and the scientific evidence reflected by a constantly increasing number of medical publications and guidelines. With the objective of optimal medical treatment, the concept of evidence-based medicine is founded on these three aspects. It should be considered that there is a high risk of misinterpreting evidence, leading to medical errors and adverse effects without knowledge of the methodological background. OBJECTIVES: This article explains the concept of systematic error (bias) and its importance. Causes and effects as well as methods to minimize bias are discussed. This information should impart a deeper understanding, leading to a better assessment of studies and implementation of its recommendations in daily medical practice. CONCLUSION: Developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the risk of bias (RoB) tool is an assessment instrument for the potential of bias in controlled trials. Good handling, short processing time, high transparency of judgements and a graphical presentation of findings that is easily comprehensible are among its strengths. Attached to this article the German translation of the RoB tool is published. This should facilitate the applicability for non-experts and moreover, support evidence-based medical decision-making.

Development and validation of a self-report version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III).

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a self-report version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III). SETTING: Two SCI rehabilitation facilities in Switzerland. METHODS: SCIM III comprises 19 questions on daily tasks with a total score between 0 and 100 and subscales for 'self-care', 'respiration & sphincter management' and 'mobility'. A self-report version (SCIM-SR) was developed by expert discussions and pretests in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) using a German translation. A convenience sample of 99 inpatients with SCI was recruited. SCIM-SR data were analyzed together with SCIM III data obtained from attending health professionals. RESULTS: High correlations between SCIM III and SCIM-SR were observed. Pearson's r for the total score was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.91), for the subscales self-care 0.87 (0.81-0.91); respiration & sphincter management 0.81 (0.73-0.87); and mobility 0.87 (0.82-0.91). Intraclass correlations were: total score 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.93); self-care 0.86 (0.79-0.90); respiration & sphincter management 0.80 (0.71-0.86); and mobility 0.83 (0.76-0.89). Bland-Altman plots showed that patients rated their functioning higher than professionals, in particular for mobility. The mean difference between SCIM-SR and SCIM III for the total score was 5.14 (point estimate 95% CI 2.95-7.34), self-care 0.89 (0.19-1.59), respiration & sphincter management 1.05 (0.18-2.28 ) and mobility 3.49 (2.44-4.54). Particularly patients readmitted because of pressure sores rated their independence higher than attending professionals. CONCLUSION: Our results support the criterion validity of SCIM-SR. The self-report version may facilitate long-term evaluations of independence in persons with SCI in their home situation.

[Weight gain and progestin-only contraceptives: more concern than evidence]. / Prise de poids et contraceptifs à progestatifs seuls: plus d'inquiétude que de preuves scientifiques.

Weight gain is a side effect often associated with progestin-only contraceptives. A recently published Cochrane review focuses on this issue that has been addressed in only few studies of good quality. Here we discuss the results of this review in the context of three clinical cases. With progestin-only contraceptives the weight gain is less than often thought, especially after six or twelve months of treatment. Some results are rather reassuring, especially those in obese women and during the post-partum period. This should help improve the compliance of women who fear gaining weight with this type of hormonal contraception.

Pre-hospital tracheal intubation in patients with traumatic brain injury: systematic review of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed the current evidence on the benefit and harm of pre-hospital tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation after traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search up to December 2007 without language restriction to identify interventional and observational studies comparing pre-hospital intubation with other airway management (e.g. bag-valve-mask or oxygen administration) in patients with TBI. Information on study design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by two investigators and cross-checked by two others. Seventeen studies were included with data for 15,335 patients collected from 1985 to 2004. There were 12 retrospective analyses of trauma registries or hospital databases, three cohort studies, one case-control study, and one controlled trial. Using Brain Trauma Foundation classification of evidence, there were 14 class 3 studies, three class 2 studies, and no class 1 study. Six studies were of adults, five of children, and three of both; age groups were unclear in three studies. Maximum follow-up was up to 6 months or hospital discharge. RESULTS: In 13 studies, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for an effect of pre-hospital intubation on in-hospital mortality ranged from 0.17 (favouring control interventions) to 2.43 (favouring pre-hospital intubation); adjusted ORs ranged from 0.24 to 1.42. Estimates for functional outcomes after TBI were equivocal. Three studies indicated higher risk of pneumonia associated with pre-hospital (when compared with in-hospital) intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the available evidence did not support any benefit from pre-hospital intubation and mechanical ventilation after TBI. Additional arguments need to be taken into account, including medical and procedural aspects.

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.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30). Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.

Complementary medicine use by men with prostate cancer: a systematic review of prevalence studies.

Men with prostate cancer are reported as commonly using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) but surveys have not recently been subjected to a rigorous systematic review incorporating quality assessment. Six electronic databases were searched using pre-defined terms. Detailed information was extracted systematically from each relevant article. Study reporting quality was assessed using a quality assessment tool, which demonstrated acceptable inter-rater reliability and produces a percentage score. In all, 42 studies are reviewed. All were published in English between 1999 and 2009; 60% were conducted in the United States. The reporting quality was mixed (median score = 66%, range 23-94%). Significant heterogeneity precluded formal meta-analysis. In all, 39 studies covering 11,736 men reported overall prevalence of CAM use; this ranged from 8 to 90% (median=30%). In all, 10 studies reported prevalence of CAM use specifically for cancer care; this ranged from 8 to 50% (median = 30%). Some evidence suggested CAM use is more common in men with higher education/incomes and more severe disease. The prevalence of CAM use among men with prostate cancer varies greatly across studies. Future studies should use standardised and validated data collection techniques to reduce bias and enhance comparability.

How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach.

BACKGROUND: External validity of study results is an important issue from a clinical point of view. From a methodological point of view, however, the concept of external validity is more complex than it seems to be at first glance. METHODS: Methodological review to address the concept of external validity. RESULTS: External validity refers to the question whether results are generalizable to persons other than the population in the original study. The only formal way to establish the external validity would be to repeat the study for that specific target population. We propose a three-way approach for assessing the external validity for specified target populations. (i) The study population might not be representative for the eligibility criteria that were intended. It should be addressed whether the study population differs from the intended source population with respect to characteristics that influence outcome. (ii) The target population will, by definition, differ from the study population with respect to geographical, temporal and ethnical conditions. Pondering external validity means asking the question whether these differences may influence study results. (iii) It should be assessed whether the study's conclusions can be generalized to target populations that do not meet all the eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Judging the external validity of study results cannot be done by applying given eligibility criteria to a single target population. Rather, it is a complex reflection in which prior knowledge, statistical considerations, biological plausibility and eligibility criteria all have place.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting of observational studies]. / Das Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE-) Statement.

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.