Dataset Information

Cross-sectional analysis of the reporting of continuous outcome measures and clinical significance of results in randomized trials of non-pharmacological interventions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reporting the scoring details of continuous outcome measures in randomized trials allows readers to interpret the size of any effect of the intervention. This study aimed to determine, in a sample of randomized trials: 1) the completeness of reporting of scoring details for continuous outcome measures, and 2) whether trial authors comment on the clinical significance of statistically significant trial results.

Methods

A descriptive analysis of randomized trials of non-pharmacological interventions published during 2009 in the six leading general medical journals (n = 138), and which used at least one continuous outcome measure (n = 85). From each trial report, two authors independently extracted the following information about each continuous outcome measure: the reporting of its scoring details, presentation of its results, and the reporting and justification of the clinical significance of the results.

Results

Across the 84 trials, we identified 336 continuous outcome measures. A total of 146 (44%) were published measures, 12 (4%) were adapted from published measures, 5 (1%) were developed for the trial, and 173 (51%) were 'conventional measures' for which scoring details are not necessary (such as weight). For 57 (35%) of the 163 non-conventional outcome measures no scoring details or reference to the outcome measure were provided in the trial report. Of the 159 outcome measures with a statistically significant result, clinical significance was not mentioned for 81 (51%) and was reported without any elaboration or justification for 39 (25%) of them.

Conclusions

Scoring details of continuous outcome measures used in this sample of randomized trials of non-pharmacological interventions were incompletely reported, which hampers interpretation of a trial's results. Complete reporting of scoring details is important when considering the clinical significance of the results. When deciding about an intervention, having this information may help clinicians in their conversations with patients about the possible benefits and harms, and their size, of the intervention.

SUBMITTER: Hoffmann TC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4177425 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimIt is useful, for theoretical and practical reasons, to be able to specify functions for continuous abstinence over time in smoking cessation attempts. This study aimed to find the best-fitting models of mean proportion abstinent with different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies up to 52 weeks from the quit date.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological treatments to aid smoking cessation. For comparability, we selected trials that provided 12 weeks of treatment. Continuous abstinence rates for each treatment at each follow-up point in trials were extracted along with methodological details of the trial. Data points for each pharmacotherapy at each follow-up point were aggregated where the total across contributing studies included at least 1000 participants per data point. Continuous abstinence curves were modelled using a range of different functions from the quit date to 52-week follow-up. Models were compared for fit using R2 and Bayesian information criterion (BIC).ResultsStudies meeting our selection criteria covered three pharmacotherapies [varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and bupropion] and placebo. Power functions provided the best fit (R2 > 0.99, BIC < 17.0) to continuous abstinence curves from the target quit date in all cases except for varenicline, where a logarithmic function described the curve best (R2 = 0.99, BIC = 21.2). At 52 weeks, abstinence rates were 22.5% (23.0% modelled) for varenicline, 16.7% (16.0% modelled) for bupropion, 13.0% (12.4% modelled) for NRT and 8.3% (8.9% modelled) for placebo. For varenicline, bupropion, NRT and placebo, respectively, 55.9, 65.0, 62.3 and 56.5% of participants who were abstinent at the end of treatment were still abstinent at 52 weeks.ConclusionsMean continuous abstinence rates up to 52 weeks from initiation of smoking cessation attempts in clinical trials can be modelled using simple power functions for placebo, nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion and a logarithmic function for varenicline. This allows accurate prediction of abstinence rates from any time point to any other time point up to 52 weeks.

Project description:BackgroundFor a randomized trial, the primary publication is usually the one which reports the results of the primary outcome and provides consolidated data from all study centers. Other aspects of a randomized trial's findings (that is, non-primary results) are often reported in subsequent publications.MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional review of the characteristics and type of information reported in non-primary reports (n = 69) of randomized trials (indexed in PubMed core clinical journals in 2009) and whether they report pre-specified or exploratory analyses. We also compared consistency of information in non-primary publications with that reported in the primary publication.ResultsThe majority (n = 56; 81%) of non-primary publications were large, multicenter trials, published in specialty journals. Most reported subgroup analyses (n = 27; 39%), analyzing a specific subgroup of patients from the randomized trial, or reported on secondary outcomes (n = 29; 42%); 19% (n = 13) reported extended follow-up. Less than half reported details of trial registration (n = 30; 43%) or the trial protocol (n = 27; 39%) and in 41% (n = 28) it was unclear from reading the abstract that the report was not the primary publication for the trial. Non-primary publications often analyzed and reported multiple different outcomes (16% reported >20 outcomes) and in 10% (n = 7) it was unclear how many outcomes had actually been assessed; in 42% (n = 29) it was unclear whether the analyses reported were pre-specified or exploratory. Only 39% (n = 27) of non-primary publications described the primary outcome of the randomized trial, 6% (n = 4) reported its numerical results and 9% (n = 6) details of how participants were randomized.ConclusionNon-primary publications often lack important information about the randomized trial and the type of analyses conducted and whether these were pre-specified or exploratory to enable readers to accurately identify and assess the validity and reliably of the study findings. We provide recommendations for what information authors should include in non-primary reports of randomized trials.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this Delphi survey was to establish an international consensus on the most useful outcome measures for research on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for migraine. This is important, since guidelines for pharmacological trials recommend measuring the frequency of headaches with 50% reduction considered a clinically meaningful effect. It is unclear whether the same recommendations apply to complementary (or adjunct) non-pharmacological approaches, whether the same cut-off levels need to be considered for effectiveness when used as an adjunct or stand-alone intervention, and what is meaningful to patients. SETTING:University-initiated international survey. PARTICIPANTS:The expert panel was chosen based on publications on non-pharmacological interventions in migraine populations and from personal contacts. 35 eligible researchers were contacted, 12 agreed to participate and 10 completed all 3 rounds of the survey. To further explore how migraine patients viewed potential outcome measures, four migraine patients were interviewed and presented with the same measurement tools as the researchers. PROCEDURES:The initial Delphi round was based on a systematic search of the literature for outcome measures used in non-pharmacological interventions for headache. Suggested outcome measures were rated by each expert, blinded towards the other members of the panel, for its usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from definitely not useful to extremely useful. Results were combined using median values and IQRs. Tools rated overall as definitely or probably not useful were excluded from subsequent rounds. Experts further suggested additional outcome measures that were presented to the panel in subsequent rounds. Additionally, experts were asked to rank the most useful tools and provide information on feasible cut-off levels for effectiveness for the three highest ranked tools. RESULTS:Results suggest the use of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and headache frequency as primary outcome measures. Patient experts suggested the inclusion of a measure of quality of life and evaluation of associated symptoms and fear of attacks. CONCLUSIONS:Recommendations are for the use of the MIDAS, the HIT-6 and headache frequency, in combination with an outcome measure for quality of life. Associated symptoms and fear of attacks should also be considered as secondary outcomes, if relevant for the individual target population. The cut-off level for effectiveness should be lower for non-pharmacological interventions, especially when used as an adjunct to medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:German Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011777).