Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC. METHODS: First, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes. RESULTS: We evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Quality assessment practice in systematic reviews of mediation studies: results from an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the bias assessment practice in recently published systematic reviews of mediation studies and to evaluate the quality of different bias assessment tools for mediation analysis proposed in the literature. METHOD: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews by searching MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (OvidSP), and PubMed databases for systematic reviews of mediation studies published from 2007 to 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstracts, and full texts of the identified reports and extracted the data. The publications of all mediation-specific quality assessment tools used in these reviews were also identified for the evaluation of the tools' development and validation. RESULT: Among 103 eligible reviews, 24 (23%) reviews did not assess the risk of bias of eligible studies, and 48 (47%) assessed risk of bias using a tool that was not specifically designed to evaluate mediation analysis. 31 (30.1%) reviews assessed the risk of mediation-specific biases, either narratively or by using specific tools for mediation studies. However, none of these tools were consensus-based, rigorously developed or validated. CONCLUSION: The quality assessment practice in recently published systematic reviews of mediation studies is suboptimal. To improve the quality and consistency of risk of bias assessments for mediation studies, a consensus-based bias assessment tool is needed.

Future of evidence ecosystem series: 3. From an evidence synthesis ecosystem to an evidence ecosystem.

The "one-off" approach of systematic reviews is no longer sustainable; we need to move toward producing "living" evidence syntheses (i.e., comprehensive, based on rigorous methods, and up-to-date). This implies rethinking the evidence synthesis ecosystem, its infrastructure, and management. The three distinct production systems-primary research, evidence synthesis, and guideline development-should work together to allow for continuous refreshing of synthesized evidence and guidelines. A new evidence ecosystem, not just focusing on synthesis, should allow for bridging the gaps between evidence synthesis communities, primary researchers, guideline developers, health technology assessment agencies, and health policy authorities. This network of evidence synthesis stakeholders should select relevant clinical questions considered a priority topic. For each question, a multidisciplinary community including researchers, health professionals, guideline developers, policymakers, patients, and methodologists needs to be established and commit to performing the initial evidence synthesis and keeping it up-to-date. Encouraging communities to work together continuously with bidirectional interactions requires greater incentives, rewards, and the involvement of health care policy authorities to optimize resources. A better evidence ecosystem with collaborations and interactions between each partner of the network of evidence synthesis stakeholders should permit living evidence syntheses to justify their status in evidence-informed decision-making.

The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Participation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be quite demanding and could represent an important burden for patients. We aimed to explore this research burden (i.e., the psychological, physical, and financial burdens) experienced by patients through their participation in a RCT. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies exploring adult patients' experiences with RCT participation. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, and Embase (search date March 2018) for eligible reports. Qualitative data coding and indexing were assisted by NVivo. The quality of reports was assessed by using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool. RESULTS: We included 45 qualitative studies that involved 1732 RCT participants. Important psychological burdens were identified at every stage of the trial process. Participants reported feeling anxiety and being afraid of "being a 'guinea pig'" and described undergoing randomization and allocation to a placebo as particularly difficult resulting in disappointment, anger, and depression. Patients' follow-up and trial closure were also responsible for a wide range of psychological, physical, and financial burdens. Furthermore, factors related to burdensome impacts and consequences were discerned. These factors involved trial information, poorly organized and too-demanding follow-up, and lack of appropriate management when the patient's participation ended. Trial participation was also associated with beneficial effects such as the satisfaction of feeling "useful," gaining "a sense of control," and receiving special attention. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding provides a detailed description of research burden across the whole RCT process. Many of the burdens described could be anticipated, and some avoided in a movement toward minimally disruptive clinical research. Such an approach could improve trial recruitment and retention. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018098994.

Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study). DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCE: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Meta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic. REVIEW METHODS: Blinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding. RESULTS: The study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: No evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.

Overcoming Barriers to Mobilizing Collective Intelligence in Research: Qualitative Study of Researchers With Experience of Collective Intelligence.

BACKGROUND: Innovative ways of planning and conducting research have emerged recently, based on the concept of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is defined as shared intelligence emerging when people are mobilized within or outside an organization to work on a specific task that could result in more innovative outcomes than those when individuals work alone. Crowdsourcing is defined as "the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call." OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to identify the barriers to mobilizing collective intelligence and ways to overcome these barriers and provide good practice advice for planning and conducting collective intelligence projects across different research disciplines. METHODS: We conducted a multinational online open-ended question survey and semistructured audio-recorded interviews with a purposive sample of researchers who had experience in running collective intelligence projects. The questionnaires had an interactive component, enabling respondents to rate and comment on the advice of their fellow respondents. Data were analyzed thematically, drawing on the framework method. RESULTS: A total of 82 respondents from various research fields participated in the survey (n=65) or interview (n=17). The main barriers identified were the lack of evidence-based guidelines for implementing collective intelligence, complexity in recruiting and engaging the community, and difficulties in disseminating the results of collective intelligence projects. We drew on respondents' experience to provide tips and good practice advice for governance, planning, and conducting collective intelligence projects. Respondents particularly suggested establishing a diverse coordination team to plan and manage collective intelligence projects and setting up common rules of governance for participants in projects. In project planning, respondents provided advice on identifying research problems that could be answered by collective intelligence and identifying communities of participants. They shared tips on preparing the task and interface and organizing communication activities to recruit and engage participants. CONCLUSIONS: Mobilizing collective intelligence through crowdsourcing is an innovative method to increase research efficiency, although there are several barriers to its implementation. We present good practice advice from researchers with experience of collective intelligence across different disciplines to overcome barriers to mobilizing collective intelligence.

Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to improve health care in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions can prevent the transposition of research in practice which leads waste of research. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the avoidable waste in research related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions in RCTs performed in SSA. METHODS: We performed a methodological systematic review of RCTs performed in SSA and published between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2015. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library and the African Index Medicus to identify reports. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and for each risk of bias item, determined whether easy adjustments with no or minor cost could change the domain to low risk of bias. The reporting of interventions was assessed by using standardized checklists based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, and core items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Corresponding authors of reports with incomplete reporting of interventions were contacted to obtain additional information. Data were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Among 121 RCTs selected, 74 (61%) evaluated pharmacological treatments (PTs), including drugs and nutritional supplements; and 47 (39%) nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs) (40 participative interventions, 1 surgical procedure, 3 medical devices and 3 therapeutic strategies). Overall, the randomization sequence was adequately generated in 76 reports (62%) and the intervention allocation concealed in 48 (39%). The primary outcome was described as blinded in 46 reports (38%), and incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 78 (64%). Applying easy methodological adjustments with no or minor additional cost to trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias could have reduced the number of domains at high risk for 24 RCTs (19%). Interventions were completely reported for 73/121 (60%) RCTs: 51/74 (68%) of PTs and 22/47 (46%) of NPTs. Additional information was obtained from corresponding authors for 11/48 reports (22%). CONCLUSION: Inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of published SSA RCTs could be improved by easy and inexpensive methodological adjustments and adherence to reporting guidelines.

Published randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa focus on high-burden diseases but are frequently funded and led by high-income countries.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In light of funding constraints in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the value of research performed there must be increased. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in SSA. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and African Index Medicus to identify reports of all RCTs performed in SSA and published between January 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015. We systematically recorded the country of the affiliation of the corresponding author and the funding source. The overall burden of disease was assessed by 2013 disability-adjusted life years (both sexes, all ages) in percentages for two locations: SSA and high-income countries (HICs). RESULTS: Only 12 of 121 RCTs were conducted in both Sub-Saharan Africa and another region, with 109 of 121 RCTs (90%) having trial centers exclusively located in SSA. The corresponding author's only affiliation was in SSA for 44/109 trials (40%) and was institutions in HICs for almost half of the trials. The funding source was nonprofit for 77/109 trials (70%) and was from HICs for 81% (n = 63/77). Overall, most RCTs targeted diseases with a high burden in SSA; 46% of the trials targeted the five diseases with the highest burden in SSA, mainly malaria (n = 25), HIV/AIDS (n = 24), lower respiratory tract infection (n = 2), diarrheal diseases (n = 3), and preterm birth complications (n = 2). Nevertheless, among the 25 diseases or health-related conditions with the highest burden in SSA, 9 (36%) were not assessed in any RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Published RCTs performed in SSA were mainly funded and led by HIC institutions, although investigations concerned diseases highly prevalent in SSA.

Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: To increase transparency in research, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required, in 2005, prospective registration of clinical trials as a condition to publication. However, many trials remain unregistered or retrospectively registered. We aimed to assess the association between trial prospective registration and treatment effect estimates. METHODS: This is a meta-epidemiological study based on all Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014 with meta-analyses of a binary outcome including three or more randomised controlled trials published after 2006. We extracted trial general characteristics and results from the Cochrane reviews. For each trial, we searched for registration in the report's full text, contacted the corresponding author if not reported and searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in case of no response. We classified each trial as prospectively registered (i.e. registered before the start date); retrospectively registered, distinguishing trials registered before and after the primary completion date; and not registered. Treatment effect estimates of prospectively registered and other trials were compared by the ratio of odds ratio (ROR) (ROR <1 indicates larger effects in trials not prospectively registered). RESULTS: We identified 67 meta-analyses (322 trials). Overall, 225/322 trials (70 %) were registered, 74 (33 %) prospectively and 142 (63 %) retrospectively; 88 were registered before the primary completion date and 54 after. Unregistered or retrospectively registered trials tended to show larger treatment effect estimates than prospectively registered trials (combined ROR = 0.81, 95 % CI 0.65-1.02, based on 32 contributing meta-analyses). Trials unregistered or registered after the primary completion date tended to show larger treatment effect estimates than those registered before this date (combined ROR = 0.84, 95 % CI 0.71-1.01, based on 43 contributing meta-analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of trial prospective registration may be associated with larger treatment effect estimates.

Comparison of central adjudication of outcomes and onsite outcome assessment on treatment effect estimates.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of events by adjudication committees (ACs) is recommended in multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, its usefulness has been questioned. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to compare 1) treatment effect estimates of subjective clinical events assessed by onsite assessors versus by AC, and 2) treatment effect estimates according to the blinding status of the onsite assessor as well as the process used to select events to adjudicate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Google Scholar (25 August 2015 as the last updated search date), using a combination of terms to retrieve RCTs with commonly used terms to describe ACs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all reports of RCTs and the published RCTs included in reviews and meta-analyses that reported the same subjective outcome event assessed by both an onsite assessor and an AC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the odds ratio (OR) from onsite assessment and the corresponding OR from AC assessment and calculated the ratio of the odds ratios (ROR). A ratio of odds ratios < 1 indicated that onsite assessors generated larger effect estimates in favour of the experimental treatment than ACs. MAIN RESULTS: Data from 47 RCTs (275,078 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. We excluded 11 RCTs because of incomplete outcome data to calculate the OR for onsite and AC assessments. On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates from onsite assessors and AC (combined ROR: 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; I(2) = 0%, 47 RCTs). The combined ROR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; I(2) = 0%, 35 RCTs) when onsite assessors were blinded; 0.76 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.12, I(2) = 0%, two RCTs) when AC assessed events identified independently from unblinded onsite assessors; and 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.27, I(2) = 0%, 10 RCTs) when AC assessed events identified by unblinded onsite assessors. However, there was a statistically significant interaction between these subgroups (P = 0.03) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, treatment effect estimates for subjective outcome events assessed by onsite assessors did not differ from those assessed by ACs. Results of subgroup analysis showed an interaction according to the blinded status of onsite assessors and the process used to submit data to AC. These results suggest that the use of ACs might be most important when onsite assessors are not blinded and the risk of misclassification is high. Furthermore, research is needed to explore the impact of the different procedures used to select events to adjudicate.

Assessment of a Standardized Pre-Operative Telephone Checklist Designed to Avoid Late Cancellation of Ambulatory Surgery: The AMBUPROG Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a standardized pre-operative telephone checklist on the rate of late cancellations of ambulatory surgery (AMBUPROG trial). DESIGN: Multicenter, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label randomized controlled trial. SETTING: 11 university hospital ambulatory surgery units in Paris, France. PARTICIPANTS: Patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery and able to be reached by telephone. INTERVENTION: A 7-item checklist designed to prevent late cancellation, available in five languages and two versions (for children and adults), was administered between 7 and 3 days before the planned date of surgery, by an automated phone system or a research assistant. The control group received standard management alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of cancellation on the day of surgery or the day before. RESULTS: The study population comprised 3900 patients enrolled between November 2012 and September 2013: 1950 patients were randomized to the checklist arm and 1950 patients to the control arm. The checklist was administered to 68.8% of patients in the intervention arm, 1002 by the automated phone system and 340 by a research assistant. The rate of late cancellation did not differ significantly between the checklist and control arms (109 (5.6%) vs. 113 (5.8%), adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.91 [0.65-1.29], (p = 0.57)). Checklist administration revealed that 355 patients (28.0%) had not undergone tests ordered by the surgeon or anesthetist, and that 254 patients (20.0%) still had questions concerning the fasting state. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized pre-operative telephone checklist did not avoid late cancellations of ambulatory surgery but enabled us to identify several frequent causes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01732159.

Performance of principal scores to estimate the marginal compliers causal effect of an intervention.

We examine the properties of principal scores methods to estimate the causal marginal odds ratio of an intervention for compliers in the context of a randomized controlled trial with non-compliers. The two-stage estimation approach has been proposed for a linear model by Jo and Stuart (Statistics in Medicine 2009; 28:2857-2875) under a principal ignorability (PI) assumption. Using a Monte Carlo simulation study, we compared the performance of several strategies to build and use principal score models and the robustness of the method to violations of underlying assumptions, in particular PI. Results showed that the principal score approach yielded unbiased estimates of the causal marginal log odds ratio under PI but that the method was sensitive to violations of PI, which occurs in particular when confounders are omitted from the analysis. For principal score analysis, probability weighting performed slightly better than full matching or 1:1 matching. Concerning the variables to be included in principal score models, the lowest mean squared error was generally obtained when using the true confounders. Using variables associated with the outcome only but not compliance however yielded very similar performance.

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners' confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed. METHODS: We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5. RESULTS: Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873.

Comparison of treatment effect estimates for pharmacological randomized controlled trials enrolling older adults only and those including adults: a meta-epidemiological study.

CONTEXT: Older adults are underrepresented in clinical research. To assess therapeutic efficacy in older patients, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) include older adults only. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment effects between RCTs including older adults only (elderly RCTs) and RCTs including all adults (adult RCTs) by a meta-epidemiological approach. METHODS: All systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2011) were screened. Eligible studies were meta-analyses of binary outcomes of pharmacologic treatment including at least one elderly RCT and at least one adult RCT. For each meta-analysis, we compared summary odds ratios for elderly RCTs and adult RCTs by calculating a ratio of odds ratios (ROR). A summary ROR was estimated across all meta-analyses. RESULTS: We selected 55 meta-analyses including 524 RCTs (17% elderly RCTs). The treatment effects differed beyond that expected by chance for 7 (13%) meta-analyses, showing more favourable treatment effects in elderly RCTs in 5 cases and in adult RCTs in 2 cases. The summary ROR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-1.08, p = 0.28), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 51% and τ(2) = 0.14). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses by type-of-age RCT (elderly RCTs vs RCTs excluding older adults and vs RCTs of mixed-age adults), type of outcome (mortality or other) and type of comparator (placebo or active drug) yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of pharmacologic treatments did not significantly differ, on average, between RCTs including older adults only and RCTs of all adults. However, clinically important discrepancies may occur and should be considered when generalizing evidence from all adults to older adults.

ASSIST applicability scoring of surgical trials. an investigator-reported assessment tool.

CONTEXT: We aimed to develop a new tool for assessing and depicting the applicability of the results of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the trial investigators' perspective. METHODS: We identified all items related to applicability by a systematic methodological review, and then a sample of surgeons used these items in a web-based survey to evaluate the applicability of their own trial results. For each applicability item, participants had to indicate on a numerical scale that was simplified as a three-item scale: 1) items essential to consider, 2) items requiring attention, and 3) items inconsequential to the applicability of the results of their own RCT to clinical practice. For the final tool, we selected only items that were rated as being essential or requiring attention for at least 25% of the trials evaluated. We propose a specific process to construct the tool and to depict applicability in a graph. We identified all investigators of published and registered ongoing RCTs assessing surgery and invited them to participate in the web-based survey. RESULTS: 148 surgeons assessed applicability for their own trial and participated in the process of item selection. The final tool contains 22 items (4 dedicated to patients, 5 to centers, 5 to surgeons and 8 to the intervention). We proposed a straightforward process of constructing the graphical tool: 1) a multidisciplinary team of investigators or other care providers participating in the trial could independently assess each item, 2) a consensus method could be used, and 3) the investigators could depict their assessment of the applicability of the trial results in 4 graphs related to patients, centers, surgeons and the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This investigator-reported assessment tool could help readers define under what conditions they could reasonably apply the results of a surgical RCT to their clinical practice.

Geographical representativeness of published and ongoing randomized controlled trials. The example of: Tobacco consumption and HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: The challenge for evidence-based healthcare is to reduce mortality and the burden of diseases. This study aimed to compare where research is conducted to where research is needed for 2 public health priorities: tobacco consumption and HIV infection. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in Cochrane systematic reviews published between 1997 and 2007 and registered ongoing RCTs identified in January 2009 through the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) evaluating interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection. We used the WHO and World Bank reports to classify the countries by income level, as well as map the global burden of disease and mortality attributable to tobacco use and HIV infection to the countries where the trials performed. RESULTS: We evaluated 740 RCTs included in systematic reviews and 346 ongoing RCTs. For tobacco use, 4% of RCTs included in systematic reviews and 2% of ongoing trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries represented 70% of the mortality related to tobacco use. For HIV infection, 31% of RCTs included in systematic reviews and 33% of ongoing trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries represented 99% of the mortality related to HIV infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight an important underrepresentation of low- and middle-income countries in currently available evidence (RCTs included in systematic reviews) and awaiting evidence (registered ongoing RCTs) for reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection.

Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate systematic reviews of research into two public health priorities, tobacco consumption and HIV infection, in terms of the reporting of data related to the applicability of trial results (i.e., whether the results of a trial can be reasonably applied or generalized to a definable group of patients in a particular setting in routine practice, also called external validity or generalisability). METHODS: All systematic reviews of interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection published in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews and in journals indexed in MEDLINE between January 1997 and December 2007 were selected. We used a standardized data abstraction form to extract data related to applicability in terms of the context of the trial, (country, centres, settings), participants (recruitment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics of participants such as age, sex, ethnicity, coexisting diseases or co-morbidities, and socioeconomic status), treatment (duration, intensity/dose of treatment, timing and delivery format), and the outcomes assessment from selected reviews. RESULTS: A total of 98 systematic reviews were selected (57 Cochrane reviews and 41 non-Cochrane reviews); 49 evaluated interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and 49 treating or preventing HIV infection. The setting of the individual studies was reported in 45 (46%) of the systematic reviews, the number of centres in 21 (21%), and the country where the trial took place in 62 (63%). Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the included studies were reported in 16 (16%) and 13 (13%) of the reviews, respectively. Baseline characteristics of participants in the included studies were described in 59 (60%) of the reviews. These characteristics concerned age in about half of the reviews, sex in 46 (47%), and ethnicity in 9 (9%).Applicability of results was discussed in 13 (13%) of the systematic reviews. The reporting was better in systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration than by non-Cochrane groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted the lack of consideration of applicability of results in systematic reviews of research into 2 public health priorities: tobacco consumption and HIV infection.