Dataset Information

Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials.

Methods

Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high-impact journals. Information on adequate vs inadequate reporting of cointerventions, blinding, risk of bias due to deviations of intended interventions (low vs high/some concerns), funding (nonindustry vs industry), design (superiority vs noninferiority), and results were assessed by 2 reviewers. The association with effect sizes was assessed using meta-regression random-effect analysis, expressed as ratios of odds ratios (ROR). RORs of >1.0 indicated that trials with the methodological factor pointing to lower quality report larger treatment estimates.

Results

In total, 164 trials were included. Of the 164 trials, 124 (74%) did not adequately report cointerventions; 89 of the 164 trials (54%) provided no information regarding cointerventions, and 70 of the 164 (43%) were at risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Moreover, 86 of the 164 (53%) were at risk of bias due to deviation of intended interventions. Of the 164 trials, 144 (88%) were funded by the industries. Trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions had larger treatment estimates for the primary end point (ROR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15; I²=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I²=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I²=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I²=0%) was found.

Conclusion

We conclude that trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions showed larger treatment effect estimates, potentially indicating overestimation of therapeutic benefit.

Trial registration

Prospero Identifier: CRD42017072522.

SUBMITTER: Buhrer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10250579 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Bührer Jonas J Del Giovane Cinzia C Gencer Baris B Adam Luise L Lyko Christina C Feller Martin M Da Costa Bruno R BR Aujesky Drahomir D Bauer Douglas C DC Rodondi Nicolas N Moutzouri Elisavet E

Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes 20230602 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high-impact journals. Information on adequate vs inadequate reporting of cointerventions, blinding, risk of bias due to deviations of intended interventions (l ...[more]

PMID: 37304064

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourcesMedline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesFrom each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value <1 indicated larger treatment effects in mITT trials than in other trial categories).Results50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ(2)=0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ(2)=0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ(2)=0.57).ConclusionsTrials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.

Project description:IntroductionIn trials, subgroup analyses are used to examine whether treatment effects differ by important patient characteristics. However, which subgroups are most commonly reported has not been comprehensively described.Design and settingsUsing a set of trials identified from the US clinical trials register (ClinicalTrials.gov), we describe every reported subgroup for a range of conditions and drug classes.MethodsWe obtained trial characteristics from ClinicalTrials.gov via the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. We subsequently obtained all corresponding PubMed-indexed papers and screened these for subgroup reporting. Tables and text for reported subgroups were extracted and standardised using Medical Subject Headings and WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. Via logistic and Poisson regression models we identified independent predictors of result reporting (any vs none) and subgroup reporting (any vs none and counts). We then summarised subgroup reporting by index condition and presented all subgroups for all trials via a web-based interactive heatmap (https://ihwph-hehta.shinyapps.io/subgroup_reporting_app/).ResultsAmong 2235 eligible trials, 23% (524 trials) reported subgroups. Follow-up time (OR, 95%CI: 1.13, 1.04-1.24), enrolment (per 10-fold increment, 3.48, 2.25-5.47), trial starting year (1.07, 1.03-1.11) and specific index conditions (eg, hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, taking asthma as the reference, OR ranged from 0.15 to 10.44), predicted reporting, sponsoring source and number of arms did not. Results were similar on modelling any result reporting (except number of arms, 1.42, 1.15-1.74) and the total number of subgroups. Age (51%), gender (45%), racial group (28%) were the most frequently reported subgroups. Characteristics related to the index condition (severity/duration/types etc) were frequently reported (eg, 69% of myocardial infarction trials reported on its severity/duration/types). However, reporting on comorbidity/frailty (five trials) and mental health (four trials) was rare.ConclusionOther than age, sex, race ethnicity or geographic location and characteristics related to the index condition, information on variation in treatment effects is sparse.Prospero registration numberCRD42018048202.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sources93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Data extractionSample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial.Data synthesisTrials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥ 1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials).ResultsTreatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00).ConclusionsTreatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.

Project description:IntroductionIt is fundamental that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are properly conducted in order to reach well-supported conclusions. However, there is emerging evidence that RCTs are subject to biases which can overestimate or underestimate the true treatment effect, due to flaws in the study design characteristics of such trials. The extent to which this holds true in oral health RCTs, which have some unique design characteristics compared to RCTs in other health fields, is unclear. As such, we aim to examine the empirical evidence quantifying the extent of bias associated with methodological and non-methodological characteristics in oral health RCTs.Methods and analysisWe plan to perform a meta-epidemiological study, where a sample size of 60 meta-analyses (MAs) including approximately 600 RCTs will be selected. The MAs will be randomly obtained from the Oral Health Database of Systematic Reviews using a random number table; and will be considered for inclusion if they include a minimum of five RCTs, and examine a therapeutic intervention related to one of the recognised dental specialties. RCTs identified in selected MAs will be subsequently included if their study design includes a comparison between an intervention group and a placebo group or another intervention group. Data will be extracted from selected trials included in MAs based on a number of methodological and non-methodological characteristics. Moreover, the risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect size estimates and measures of variability for the main outcome will be extracted from each RCT included in selected MAs, and a two-level analysis will be conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach with a random effects model to allow for intra-MA and inter-MA heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationThe intended audiences of the findings will include dental clinicians, oral health researchers, policymakers and graduate students. The aforementioned will be introduced to the findings through workshops, seminars, round table discussions and targeted individual meetings. Other opportunities for knowledge transfer will be pursued such as key dental conferences. Finally, the results will be published as a scientific report in a dental peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field.MethodsIn June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0.ResultsIn total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34 ± 0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design," changes in "outcomes" and "implementation," or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding." Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants" (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation" (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size" (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size" (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism" (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods" (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding" (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants," "interventions," and definitions of the "outcomes" and "statistical methods." The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score.ConclusionsThe completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.

Project description:BackgroundNon-inferiority (NI) trials require unique trial design and methods, which pose challenges in their interpretation and applicability, risking introduction of inferior therapies in clinical practice. With the abundance of novel therapies, NI trials are increasing in publication. Prior studies found inadequate quality of reporting of NI studies, but were limited to certain specialties/journals, lacked NI margin evaluation, and did not examine temporal changes in quality. We conducted a systematic review without restriction to journal type, journal impact factor, disease state or intervention to evaluate the quality of NI trials, including a comprehensive risk of bias assessment and comparison of quality over time.MethodologyWe searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for NI trials published in English in 2014 and 2019. They were assessed for: study design and NI margin characteristics, primary results, and risk of bias for blinding, concealment, analysis method and missing outcome data.ResultsWe included 823 studies. Between 2014 and 2019, a shift from publication in specialty to general journals (15% vs 28%, p < 0.001) and from pharmacological to non-pharmacological interventions (25% vs 38%, p = 0.025) was observed. The NI margin was specified in most trials for both years (94% vs 95%). Rationale for the NI margin increased (36% vs 57%, p < 0.001), but remained low, with clinical judgement the most common rationale (30% vs 23%), but more 2019 articles incorporating patient values (0.3% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Over 50% of studies were open-label for both years. Gold standard method of analyses (both per protocol + (modified) intention to treat) declined over time (43% vs 36%, p < 0.001).DiscussionThe methodological quality and reporting of NI trials remains inadequate although improving in some areas. Improved methods for NI margin justification, blinding, and analysis method are warranted to facilitate clinical decision-making.

Dataset Information

Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets