Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in anticoagulant versus antiplatelet medication for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis as governed by the CONSORT statement.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard research in evaluating healthcare interventions. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement improves the quality of RCTs in an evidence-based approach. To evaluate the reporting quality of published RCTs concerning the use of anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis according to the CONSORT statement. Electronic databases were searched for English-language RCTs involving patients who received either anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism published from 2000 to 2019. Trials were considered eligible when the included patients received either anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication for primary and secondary prevention of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and were randomly assigned to at least two treatment arms. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 37-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist. Reporting was assessed in 2 publication periods (2000-2009) and (2010-2019). The effect of CONSORT statement in high- and low-ranked medical journals, according to their impact factor, has also been evaluated. The search identified 13 eligible articles for analysis. Only 12 of the 37 items of the checklist were addressed in 75% or more of the studies. Most items concerning the methodological issues were reported by fewer than 50% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for items that assessed the methodological quality with no statistically significant difference. RCTs published in high-ranked journals showed better quality of reporting. Quality of reporting in RCTs focusing on the use of anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis remains unsatisfactory. Further improvement of reporting is necessary to assess the validity of clinical research.

Effects of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) on cognitive function. A systematic review of RCTs.

INTRODUCTION: Improvement of cognitive function may be desirable for healthy individuals and clinically beneficial for those with cognitive impairment such as from Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the cognitive effects of oral saffron intake, in patients with MCI/AD and/or in non-demented individuals, by following the PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: We performed a literature search on MedLine, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of oral saffron administration in patients with MCI/AD and/or in non-demented individuals. RESULTS: Five studies (enrolling 325 individuals) met our inclusion criteria. Four studies included patients with MCI/AD, and one study included cognitively normal individuals. Saffron was well-tolerated in all groups. Regarding cognitively impaired patients, scores on Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale or Mini mental state examination were significantly better when saffron was compared with placebo and did not differ significantly when saffron was compared with donepezil or memantine. Saffron effects on functional status were similar with its effects on cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Saffron was shown to be equally effective to common symptomatic drugs for MCI/AD and resulted in no difference in the incidence of side effects, when compared with placebo or drugs. The promising results should be seen cautiously, since the evidence was derived from studies with potentially high risk of bias (ROB). RCTs with larger sample sizes and low ROB are required to definitively assess the potential role of saffron as an MCI/AD treatment.

Assessment of the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials for vitamin D supplementation in autoimmune thyroid disorders based on the CONSORT statement.

BACKGROUND-PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, yet their quality is often suboptimal. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a list of advice to upgrade the quality of RCTs. The aim of this study was the assessment of the quality of RCTs for vitamin D supplements in thyroid autoimmunity according to the revised CONSORT 2010 checklist. METHODS: Databases were searched for RCTs involving patients with autoimmune thyroid disorders (AITDs) who received vitamin D supplements published from 2011 to 2021. A list of 37-items was used and adherence ≥75% was considered of optimal quality. The primary outcome was the mean CONSORT adherence of studies. Secondary outcomes were the estimation of compliance per CONSORT item and the examination for possible determinants of the reporting quality. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible trials were finally included. The mean compliance was 61.15% ± 14.86%. Only threeof the studies (23%) achieved a good reporting quality (≥75%), while ten (77%) were presented with inadequate reporting (<75%). Randomization and blinding were mainly poorly reported. Impact Factor (IF) of journal was associated with the reporting quality in the univariate analysis [p = 0.033, OR = 1.65, 95%CI = (1316, 1773)]. Sample size (p = 0.067), number of authors (p = 0.118) and number of citations (p = 0.125) were marginally not significant. None of the factors showed significant results in multivariate analysis. Reporting quality and IF were strongly positively correlated [Pearson's r = 0.740, p = 0.04]. CONCLUSION: This study shows that mean CONSORT adherence of RCTs for Vitamin D supplementation in AITDs is moderate, reflecting that study quality and transparency could be improved with better adherence to CONSORT rules.