The reporting quality and spin of randomized controlled trials of endometriosis pain: Methodological study based on CONSORT extension on abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts regarding patients with endometriosis pelvic pain and investigate the prevalence and characteristics of spin in these abstracts. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were searched for RCT abstracts addressing endometriosis pelvic pain published from January 1st, 2010 to December 1st, 2023.The reporting quality of RCT abstracts was assessed using the CONSORT statement for abstracts. Additionally, spin was evaluated in the results and conclusions section of the abstracts, defined as the misleading reporting of study findings to emphasize the perceived benefits of an intervention or to confound readers from statistically non-significant results. Assessing factors affecting the reporting quality and spin existence, linear and logistic regression was used, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 47 RCT abstracts were included. Out of 16 checklist items, only three items including objective, intervention and conclusions were sufficiently reported in the most abstracts (more than 95%), and none of the abstracts presented precise data as required by the CONSORT-A guidelines. In the reporting quality of material and method section, trial design, type of randomization, the generation of random allocation sequences, the allocation concealment and blinding were most items identified that were suboptimal. The total score for the quality varied between 5 and 15 (mean: 9.59, SD: 3.03, median: 9, IQR: 5). Word count (beta = 0.015, p-value = 0.005) and publishing in open-accessed journals (beta = 2.023, p-value = 0.023) were the significant factors that affecting the reporting quality. Evaluating spin within each included paper, we found that 18 (51.43%) papers had statistically non-significant results. From these studies, 12 (66.66%) had spin in both results and conclusion sections. Furthermore, the spin intensity increased during 2010-2023 and 38.29% of abstracts had spin in both results and conclusion sections. CONCLUSION: Overall poor adherence to CONSORT-A was observed, with spin detected in several RCTs featuring non-significant primary endpoints in obstetrics and gynecology literature.

Analysis of core outcome set reporting in coronary intervention trials.

BACKGROUND: This paper will focus on outcome reporting within percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials. A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes that are recommended to be reported in every clinical trial. Using a COS can help to ensure that all relevant outcomes are consistently reported across clinical trials. In 2018, the European Society of Cardiology outlined the only COS published for PCI trials. METHODS: We searched the literature for all randomised controlled trials published between 2014 and 2022. PCI trials included were late-phase trials and must investigate coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of trials that reported all of the COS-defined outcomes within their publication as either a primary, secondary or safety endpoint. The secondary outcomes included; the number of primary outcomes reported per study, the proportion of studies which use patient and public involvement (PPI) during trial design, outcome variability and outcome consistency. RESULTS: 9580 trials were screened and 115 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our study demonstrated that 55% (34/62) of PCI trials used a COS when it was available, compared with 40% (21/53) before the availability of a PCI COS set, p=0.121. Fewer primary outcomes were reported after the implementation of the COS, 2 compared with 2.3, p=0.014. There was no difference in the use of PPI between either group. There was a higher level of variability in outcomes reported before the availability of the COS, while the consistency of outcome reporting remained similar. CONCLUSION: The use of a COS in PCI trials is low. This study provides evidence that there still is a lack of awareness of the COS among those who design clinical trials. We also presented the inconsistency and heterogenicity in reporting clinical trial outcomes. Finally, there was a clear lack of PPI utilisation in PCI trials.

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

Accuracy of Event Rate and Effect Size Estimation in Major Cardiovascular Trials: A Systematic Review.

Importance: For the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), estimation of the expected event rate and effect size of an intervention is needed to calculate the sample size. Overestimation may lead to an underpowered trial. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of published estimates of event rate and effect size in contemporary cardiovascular RCTs. Evidence Review: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE for multicenter cardiovascular RCTs associated with MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms for cardiovascular diseases published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or the Lancet between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Identified trials underwent abstract review; eligible trials then underwent full review, and those with insufficiently reported data were excluded. Data were extracted from the original publication or the study protocol, and a random-effects model was used for data pooling. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline. The primary outcome was the accuracy of event rate and effect size estimation. Accuracy was determined by comparing the observed event rate in the control group and the effect size with their hypothesized values. Linear regression was used to determine the association between estimation accuracy and trial characteristics. Findings: Of the 873 RCTs identified, 374 underwent full review and 30 were subsequently excluded, resulting in 344 trials for analysis. The median observed event rate was 9.0% (IQR, 4.3% to 21.4%), which was significantly lower than the estimated event rate of 11.0% (IQR, 6.0% to 25.0%) with a median deviation of -12.3% (95% CI, -16.4% to -5.6%; P < .001). More than half of the trials (196 [61.1%]) overestimated the expected event rate. Accuracy of event rate estimation was associated with a higher likelihood of refuting the null hypothesis (0.13 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.25]; P = .03). The median observed effect size in superiority trials was 0.91 (IQR, 0.74 to 0.99), which was significantly lower than the estimated effect size of 0.72 (IQR, 0.60 to 0.80), indicating a median overestimation of 23.1% (95% CI, 17.9% to 28.3%). A total of 216 trials (82.1%) overestimated the effect size. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of contemporary cardiovascular RCTs, event rates of the primary end point and effect sizes of an intervention were frequently overestimated. This overestimation may have contributed to the inability to adequately test the trial hypothesis.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

A System for Rapidly Yet Rigorously Evaluating the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: This tutorial describes a system for rapidly yet rigorously assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The system has 7 criteria, represented by the acronym "BIS FOES." The BIS FOES system directs readers to assess RCTs based on the following 7 criteria: the RCT's use (or not) of effective (1) Blinding; the RCT's use (or not) of (2) Intent-to-Treat Analysis; the RCT's (3) Size and other information reflecting the effectiveness of randomization; the amount of sample lost during (4) Follow-up; the (5) Outcomes examined by the RCT (specifically, the outcome measures used by the RCT), the (6) Effects reported (ie, the statistical and clinical significance of the RCT's primary, secondary, and safety findings), and any (7) Special Considerations (ie, additional strengths, limitations, or notable features of the RCT). The first 6 criteria are of basic importance to the assessment of every RCT, whereas the Special Considerations criteria allows the system to be expanded to include virtually any other important aspect of the RCT. This tutorial explains the importance of these criteria and how to assess them. This tutorial also describes how many BIS FOES criteria can be initially assessed from the RCT Abstract while also directing readers to specific locations in the RCT article where additional important information can be found. We hope that the BIS FOES system will help healthcare trainees, but also potentially clinicians, researchers, and the general public, rapidly and thoroughly assess RCTs.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of angina pectoris with integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine interventions: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine (ITCWM), as a representative type of complex intervention, is commonly used for the treatment of angina pectoris (AP) in clinical practice. However, it is unclear whether the details of ITCWM interventions, such as rationale for selection and design, implementation and potential interactions for different therapies, were adequately reported. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the reporting characteristics and quality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AP with ITCWM interventions. METHODS: Through a search of 7 electronic databases, we identified RCTs of AP with ITCWM interventions published in both English and Chinese from 1st Jan 2017 to 6th Aug 2022. The general characteristics of included studies were summarized, further, the quality of reporting was assessed based on three Checklists, including the CONSORT with 36 items (except for one item 1b about abstract), the CONSORT for abstracts (17 items), and a self-designed ITCWM-related checklist (21 items covering rationale and details of interventions, outcome assessment and analysis). The quality of RCTs published in English and Chinese, as well as journals and dissertations were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 451 eligible RCTs were included. For the reporting compliance, the mean score (95% Confidence Interval) of the CONSORT (72 scores in total), CONSORT for abstract (34 scores in total), and ITCWM-related (42 scores in total) checklists was 27.82 (27.44-28.19), 14.17 (13.98-14.37) and 21.06 (20.69-21.43), respectively. More than half items were evaluated as poor quality (reporting rate < 50%) among each Checklist. Moreover, the reporting quality of publications in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals in terms of the CONSORT items. The reporting of published dissertations was better than that in journal publications regarding both the CONSORT and ITCWM-specific items. CONCLUSION: Although the CONSORT appears to have enhanced the reporting of RCTs in AP, the quality of ITCWM specifics is variable and in need of improvement. Reporting guideline of the ITCWM recommendations should be developed thus to improve their quality.

[Evaluation of the report quality of Chinese and English randomized controlled trials of acupuncture based on CONSORT statement and STRICTA checklist].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the report quality of Chinese and English randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture based on the CONSORT statement and STRICTA checklist. METHODS: The Chinese and English RCTs of acupuncture published from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 were searched in 7 databases including PubMed. The report quality of the included RCTs was evaluated with the CONSORT 2010 statement and STRICTA checklist. RESULTS: A total of 506 Chinese RCTs and 76 English RCTs were included. According to the CONSORT statement, in Chinese RCTs, the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 78.38% of all items, and the report rate of 25 items, such as background and reason, study design, outcome index, and sample size, was less than 10%. In English RCTs, the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 35.14% of all items, and 5 items had a report rate of less than 10%. The difference of the report rate of 15 items, such as background, reason and study design, was more than 50% between Chinese and English RCTs. The report rate of all items of STRICTA checklist was relatively high in both Chinese and English RCTs. In Chinese RCTs, the items with report rate less than 50% accounted for 29.41% of all items, which included acupuncture rationale and depth of insertion. In English RCTs, only two items had a report rate less than 50%, which were acupuncture rationale, setting and context of treatment. The report rate of five items, including needle retention time, frequency and duration of treatment sessions, details of other interventions administered to the acupuncture group, setting and context of treatment, and precise description of the control or comparator in Chinese RCTs, were higher than in English RCTs. CONCLUSION: The report quality of Chinese acupuncture RCT needs to be improved urgently, and corresponding measures should be taken to further standardize the writing and reporting of acupuncture clinical research.

Is the evidence-based medicine movement counter-productive: are randomised controlled trials the best approach to establish evidence in complex healthcare situations?

In the modern era, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been embraced as the best approach to practising medicine, providing clinicians with 'objective' evidence from clinical research. However, for presentations with complex pathophysiology or from complex social environments, sometimes there remains no evidence, and no amount of research will obtain it. Yet, health researchers continue to undertake randomised controlled trials (RCT) in complex environments, ignoring the risk that participants' health may be compromised throughout the trial process. This paper examines the role of research that seeks to obtain evidence to support EBM. We provide examples of RCTs on ear disease in Aboriginal populations as a case-in-point. Decades of ear research have failed to yield statistically significant findings, demonstrating that when multiple factors are at play, study designs struggle to balance the known disease process drivers, let alone unknown drivers. This paper asks the reader to consider if the pursuit of research is likely to produce evidence in complex situations; or if perhaps RCTs should not be undertaken in these situations. Instead, clinicians could apply empirical evidence, tailoring treatments to individuals while taking into account the complexities of their life circumstances.

Incomplete reporting of complex interventions: a call to action for journal editors to review their submission guidelines.

Reporting of intervention research has been inadequate for many years. The development and promotion of freely available checklists aims to address this problem by providing researchers with a list of items that require reporting to enable study interpretation and replication. In this commentary, we present evidence from a recent systematic review of 51 randomised controlled trials published 2015-2020 that inadequate intervention reporting remains a widespread issue and that checklists are not being used to describe all intervention components. In 2022, we assessed the submission guidelines of 33 journals that published articles included in our review and found that just one at the time encouraged the use of reporting checklists for all intervention components. To drive progress, we contacted the editors of the other 32 journals and requested that they update their submission guidelines in response. We conclude by highlighting the waste associated with current practices and encourage journals from all fields to urgently review their submission guidelines. Only through collective action can we build an evidence base that is fit for purpose.

Effectiveness of a motivated, action-based intervention on improving physical activity level, exercise self-efficacy and cardiovascular risk factors of patients with coronary heart disease in Sri Lanka: A randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD), is the major contributor to cardiac-associated mortality worldwide. Lifestyle modification, including physical activity, is highly recommended for secondary prevention for patients with CHD. However, many people in Sri Lanka with CHD do not engage in adequate physical activity. OBJECTIVE: To develop a culture-specific, motivated, and action-based intervention and examine its effects on physical activity level, exercise self-efficacy, and cardiovascular risk factors among patients with CHD. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is an assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial that will recruit 150 patients with CHD from the inpatients cardiac unit of a hospital in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka, and will randomly assign them either to the intervention group or the control group. The participants in the intervention group will receive a culture-specific and motivated, action-based intervention in addition to the usual care, while participants in the control will only receive the usual care. The intervention consists of a face-to-face preparatory session and 12-week motivated, action-based sessions which were developed based on the health action process approach (HAPA) framework. The face-to-face preparatory session will identify the health needs of the participants, develop a goal-oriented patient-centered action plan, and provide knowledge and an overview of the program. The 12-week motivated, action-based sessions consist of three monthly group education and center-based group exercises, followed by three 20-min individualized telephone follow-ups. Outcomes will be assessed immediately after the intervention and at one-month post-intervention. DISCUSSION: This protocol proposes a supervised centered-based group exercise with group education, and individualized telephone follow-ups guided by the HAPA framework to improve the physical activity level, exercise self-efficacy, and cardiovascular risk factors of patients with CHD. Results from this study will inform the effectiveness of a motivated, action-based intervention in a low-resource setting and provide information on the feasibility, barriers, and facilitators for lifestyle modification in Sri Lanka. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov.org PRS: NCT05051774; Date of registration: September 21, 2021.

Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance.

The power of language to modify the reader's perception of interpreting biomedical results cannot be underestimated. Misreporting and misinterpretation are pressing problems in randomized controlled trials (RCT) output. This may be partially related to the statistical significance paradigm used in clinical trials centered around a P value below 0.05 cutoff. Strict use of this P value may lead to strategies of clinical researchers to describe their clinical results with P values approaching but not reaching the threshold to be "almost significant." The question is how phrases expressing nonsignificant results have been reported in RCTs over the past 30 years. To this end, we conducted a quantitative analysis of English full texts containing 567,758 RCTs recorded in PubMed between 1990 and 2020 (81.5% of all published RCTs in PubMed). We determined the exact presence of 505 predefined phrases denoting results that approach but do not cross the line of formal statistical significance (P < 0.05). We modeled temporal trends in phrase data with Bayesian linear regression. Evidence for temporal change was obtained through Bayes factor (BF) analysis. In a randomly sampled subset, the associated P values were manually extracted. We identified 61,741 phrases in 49,134 RCTs indicating almost significant results (8.65%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.58% to 8.73%). The overall prevalence of these phrases remained stable over time, with the most prevalent phrases being "marginally significant" (in 7,735 RCTs), "all but significant" (7,015), "a nonsignificant trend" (3,442), "failed to reach statistical significance" (2,578), and "a strong trend" (1,700). The strongest evidence for an increased temporal prevalence was found for "a numerical trend," "a positive trend," "an increasing trend," and "nominally significant." In contrast, the phrases "all but significant," "approaches statistical significance," "did not quite reach statistical significance," "difference was apparent," "failed to reach statistical significance," and "not quite significant" decreased over time. In a random sampled subset of 29,000 phrases, the manually identified and corresponding 11,926 P values, 68,1% ranged between 0.05 and 0.15 (CI: 67. to 69.0; median 0.06). Our results show that RCT reports regularly contain specific phrases describing marginally nonsignificant results to report P values close to but above the dominant 0.05 cutoff. The fact that the prevalence of the phrases remained stable over time indicates that this practice of broadly interpreting P values close to a predefined threshold remains prevalent. To enhance responsible and transparent interpretation of RCT results, researchers, clinicians, reviewers, and editors may reduce the focus on formal statistical significance thresholds and stimulate reporting of P values with corresponding effect sizes and CIs and focus on the clinical relevance of the statistical difference found in RCTs.

PROSPECT guidelines for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular due to faster recovery times and reduced postoperative pain compared with thoracotomy. However, analgesic regimens for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery vary significantly. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. A systematic review was undertaken using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language, between January 2010 and January 2021 assessing the effect of analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. We retrieved 1070 studies of which 69 randomised controlled trials and two reviews met inclusion criteria. We recommend the administration of basic analgesia including paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion may be used, specifically when basic analgesia and regional analgesic techniques could not be given. In addition, a paravertebral block or erector spinae plane block is recommended as a first-choice option. A serratus anterior plane block could also be administered as a second-choice option. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period.

Critical analysis of the literature and standards of reporting on stroke after carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Mechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting are surprisingly underresearched. However, understanding the underlying mechanism could (1) assist in balancing the choice for revascularization vs conservative therapy, (2) assist in choosing either open or endovascular techniques, and (3) assist in taking appropriate periprocedural measures to further decrease procedural stroke rate. The purpose of this study was to overview mechanisms of procedural stroke after carotid revascularization and establish reporting standards to facilitate more granular investigation and individual patient data meta-analysis in the future. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: The limited evidence in the literature was heterogeneous and of low quality. Thus, no formal data meta-analysis could be performed. Procedural stroke was classified as hemorrhagic or ischemic; the latter was subclassified as hemodynamic, embolic (carotid embolic or cardioembolic) or carotid occlusion derived, using a combination of clinical inference and imaging data. Most events occurred in the first 24 hours after the procedure and were related to hypoperfusion (pooled incidence 10.2% [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.0-17.5] vs 13.9% [95% CI, 0.0-60.9] after CEA vs carotid artery stenting events, respectively) or atheroembolism (28.9% [95% CI, 10.9-47.0]) vs 34.3 [95% CI, 0.0-91.5]). After the first 24 hours, hemorrhagic stroke (11.6 [95% CI, 5.7-17.4] vs 9.0 [95% CI, 1.3-16.7]) or thrombotic occlusion (18.4 [95% CI, 0.9-35.8] vs 14.8 [95% CI, 0.0-30.5]) became more likely. CONCLUSIONS: Although procedural stroke incidence and etiology may have changed over the last decades owing to technical improvements and improvements in perioperative monitoring and quality control, the lack of literature data limits further statements. To simplify and enhance future reporting, procedural stroke analysis and classification should be documented preemptively in research settings. We propose a standardized form enclosing reporting standards for procedural stroke with a systematic approach to inference of the most likely etiology, for prospective use in registries and randomized controlled trials on carotid revascularization.

External Validity of Somatostatin Analogs Trials in Advanced Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: The GETNE-TRASGU Study.

INTRODUCTION: Somatostatin analogs (SSA) prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs). However, the eligibility criteria in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been restricted, which contrasts with the vast heterogeneity found in NENs. METHODS: We identified patients with well-differentiated (Ki-67% ≤20%), metastatic GEP-NENs treated in first line with SSA monotherapy from the Spanish R-GETNE registry. The therapeutic effect was evaluated using a Bayesian Cox model. The objective was to compare survival-based outcomes from real-world clinical practice versus RCTs. RESULTS: The dataset contained 535 patients with a median age of 62 years (range: 26-89). The median Ki-67% was 4 (range: 0-20). The most common primary tumor sites were as follows: midgut, 46%; pancreas, 34%; unknown primary, 10%; and colorectal, 10%. Half of the patients received octreotide LAR (n = 266) and half, lanreotide autogel (n = 269). The median PFS was 28.0 months (95% CI: 22.1-32.0) for octreotide versus 30.1 months (95% CI: 23.1-38.0) for lanreotide. The overall hazard ratio for lanreotide versus octreotide was 0.90 (95% credible interval: 0.71-1.12). The probability of effect sizes >30% with lanreotide versus octreotide was 2 and 6% for midgut and foregut NENs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study evaluated the external validity of RCTs examining SSAs in the real world, as well as the main effect-modifying factors (progression status, symptoms, tumor site, specific metastases, and analytical data). Our results indicate that both octreotide LAR and lanreotide autogel had a similar effect on PFS. Consequently, both represent valid alternatives in patients with well-differentiated, metastatic GEP-NENs.