Reporting of Design Features and Analysis Details in Randomized Clinical Trials of Procedural Treatments for Cancer Pain: An ACTTION Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the reporting of randomized clinical trials investigating procedural treatments (eg, nerve blocks, targeted drug delivery) for cancer pain, with a focus on aspects that are particularly challenging in these trials. METHODS: This article presents results from a systematic review of reporting of randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions for cancer pain. Articles were identified by searching PubMed from 1966 to June 2014. Data related to quality of reporting are presented for early (1985-2004) and late periods (2005-2014). RESULTS: A total of 35 published trials were included. Approximately two-thirds of the articles clearly indicated the level of blinding. Only 26% reported a primary outcome measure. Less than half explicitly reported the number of patients who completed the trial, and only 1 reported a method that was used to accommodate missing data. Almost one-third of articles included a responder analysis, all of which specified the definition of a responder. CONCLUSIONS: The goal of highlighting these deficiencies in reporting is to promote transparent reporting of details affecting the completion and interpretation of procedural cancer pain trials so that their quality can be more easily evaluated.

Reporting of cross-over clinical trials of analgesic treatments for chronic pain: Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks systematic review and recommendations.

Cross-over trials are typically more efficient than parallel group trials in that the sample size required to yield a desired power is substantially smaller. It is important, however, to consider some issues specific to cross-over trials when designing and reporting them, and when evaluating the published results of such trials. This systematic review evaluated the quality of reporting and its evolution over time in articles of cross-over clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain published between 1993 and 2013. Seventy-six (61%) articles reported a within-subject primary analysis, or if no primary analysis was identified, reported at least 1 within-subject analysis, which is required to achieve the gain in power associated with the cross-over design. For 39 (31%) articles, it was unclear whether analyses conducted were within-subject or between-group. Only 36 (29%) articles reported a method to accommodate missing data (eg, last observation carried forward, n = 29), and of those, just 14 included subjects in the analysis who provided data from only 1 period. Of the articles that identified a within-subject primary analysis, 21 (51%) provided sufficient information for the results to be included in a meta-analysis (ie, estimates of the within-subject treatment effect and variability). These results and others presented in this article demonstrate deficiencies in reporting of cross-over trials for analgesic treatments. Clearer reporting in future trials could improve readers' ability to critically evaluate the results, use these data in meta-analyses, and plan future trials. Recommendations for proper reporting of cross-over trials that apply to any condition are provided.

Reporting of adverse events and statistical details of efficacy estimates in randomized clinical trials of pain in temporomandibular disorders: Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Statistical methods and adverse events (that is, harms) data affect the accuracy of conclusions about the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). The authors reviewed the quality of reporting in TMD clinical trials to highlight practices that are in need of improvement. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors included articles published between 1969 and May 31, 2013, in which the investigators reported randomized clinical trials of TMD treatments with pain as a principal outcome variable. Investigators in trials of nonpharmacologic and noninvasive treatments were required to at least mask the participants and assessors; all others were required to be double masked. RESULTS: Ninety articles qualified for this review: 39 published between 1971 and 2005 (older articles) and 51 published between 2006 and 2013 (newer articles). Specification of primary outcome analyses, methods to accommodate missing data, and adverse event collection methods and rates were generally poor. In some cases, there was apparent improvement from the older to the newer cohort; however, reporting of these methodological details remained inadequate even in the newer articles. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review is designed to alert authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of TMD clinical trials to these issues and improve reporting quality in the future.

Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review.

UNLABELLED: Sample size calculations determine the number of participants required to have sufficiently high power to detect a given treatment effect. In this review, we examined the reporting quality of sample size calculations in 172 publications of double-blind randomized controlled trials of noninvasive pharmacologic or interventional (ie, invasive) pain treatments published in European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain from January 2006 through June 2013. Sixty-five percent of publications reported a sample size calculation but only 38% provided all elements required to replicate the calculated sample size. In publications reporting at least 1 element, 54% provided a justification for the treatment effect used to calculate sample size, and 24% of studies with continuous outcome variables justified the variability estimate. Publications of clinical pain condition trials reported a sample size calculation more frequently than experimental pain model trials (77% vs 33%, P < .001) but did not differ in the frequency of reporting all required elements. No significant differences in reporting of any or all elements were detected between publications of trials with industry and nonindustry sponsorship. Twenty-eight percent included a discrepancy between the reported number of planned and randomized participants. This study suggests that sample size calculation reporting in analgesic trial publications is usually incomplete. Investigators should provide detailed accounts of sample size calculations in publications of clinical trials of pain treatments, which is necessary for reporting transparency and communication of pre-trial design decisions. PERSPECTIVE: In this systematic review of analgesic clinical trials, sample size calculations and the required elements (eg, treatment effect to be detected; power level) were incompletely reported. A lack of transparency regarding sample size calculations may raise questions about the appropriateness of the calculated sample size.

Reporting of intention-to-treat analyses in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations.

The intention-to-treat (ITT) principle states that all subjects in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) should be analyzed in the group to which they were assigned, regardless of compliance with assigned treatment. Analyses performed according to the ITT principle preserve the benefits of randomization and are recommended by regulators and statisticians for analyses of RCTs. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency with which publications of analgesic RCTs in 3 major pain journals report an ITT analysis and the percentage of the author-declared ITT analyses that include all randomized subjects and thereby fulfill the most common interpretation of the ITT principle. RCTs investigating noninvasive, pharmacologic and interventional (eg, nerve blocks, implantable pumps, spinal cord stimulators, surgery) treatments for pain, published between January 2006 and June 2013 (n=173), were included. None of the trials using experimental pain models reported an ITT analysis; 47% of trials investigating clinical pain conditions reported an ITT analysis, and 5% reported a modified ITT analysis. Of the analyses reported as ITT, 67% reported reasons for excluding subjects from the analysis, and 18% of those listing reasons for exclusion did not do so in the Methods section. Such mislabeling can make it difficult to identify traditional ITT analyses for inclusion in meta-analyses. We hope that deficiencies in reporting identified in this study will encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to promote more consistent use of the term "intention to treat" for more accurate reporting of RCT-based evidence for pain treatments.

Adverse event reporting in nonpharmacologic, noninterventional pain clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review.

Assessment of treatment safety is 1 of the primary goals of clinical trials. Organizations and working groups have created reporting guidelines for adverse events (AEs). Previous research examining AE reporting for pharmacologic clinical trials of analgesics in major pain journals found many reporting inadequacies, suggesting that analgesic trials are not adhering to existing AE reporting guidelines. The present systematic review documented AE reporting in 3 main pain journals for nonpharmacologic, noninterventional (NP/NI) trials examining pain treatments. To broaden our pool of nonpharmacologic trials, we also included trials examining acupuncture, leech therapy, and noninvasive stimulation techniques (eg, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation). We documented AE reporting at 2 levels of specificity using coding manuals based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harms reporting standards and Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) AE reporting checklist. We identified a number of inadequacies in AE reporting across the 3 journals. For example, using the ACTTION coding manual, we found that less than one-half of the trials reported specific AE assessment methods; approximately one-third of the trials reported withdrawals due to AEs for each study arm; and about one-fourth of the trials reported all specific AEs. We also examined differences in AE reporting across several trial characteristics, finding that AE reporting was generally more detailed in trials with patients versus those using healthy volunteers undergoing experimentally evoked pain. These results suggest that investigators conducting and reporting NP/NI clinical trials are not adequately describing the assessment and occurrence of AEs.