Dataset Information

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

ABSTRACT: To examine whether primary reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in six high-impact, general medical journals reported (1) whether or not a Data Monitoring Committee/Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DMC/DSMB) was used and (2) the composition of the responsibilities of the reported DSMB/DMCs.Systematic review of RCTs published in 2014 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Lancet.Of the 294 articles identified, 174 (59%) mentioned using a DMC/DSMB. Of these 174, 126 (72%) indicated at least one responsibility of the DMC/DSMB, 26% listed the names of the DMC/DSMB members, and another 14% listed both their names and affiliations. Only one article stated that a DSMB was not used. The remaining 119 articles did not report whether or not a DMC/DSMB was used, although 59 had previously stated in a clinical trials registry entry or a published protocol that a DMC/DSMB was to be used.Considering the major role that DMC/DSMBs play in protecting participant safety, data quality, and interim analyses in RCTs, we recommend that authors of publications of RCTs report whether a DMC/DSMB was used and the responsibilities and members of DMC/DSMBs to increase transparency regarding study conduct.

SUBMITTER: Gewandter JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5780643 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

Gewandter Jennifer S JS Kitt Rachel A RA Hunsinger Matthew R MR Poku Joseph J Lozano Jacqueline J Chaudari Jenna J Evans Scott S Gross Robert A RA McDermott Michael P MP Rowbotham Michael C MC Turk Dennis C DC Dworkin Robert H RH

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20170123

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether primary reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in six high-impact, general medical journals reported (1) whether or not a Data Monitoring Committee/Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DMC/DSMB) was used and (2) the composition of the responsibilities of the reported DSMB/DMCs.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>Systematic review of RCTs published in 2014 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Lancet.<h4>Results</h4>Of th ...[more]

PMID: 28126598

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.Objective/designWe conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.Data sources(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work. ELIGIBILITY: (1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.Results(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."ConclusionExisting reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

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:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients.Databases reviewedA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify peer reviewed research.MethodsA systematic review was performed, which included original prospective clinical trial research studies involving cochlear implantation and/or interventional trials involving cochlear implant patients. Collected data included funding type, level of evidence, race reporting, ethnicity reporting, socioeconomic status reporting, education level reporting, type of insurance, geographic location, and gender of patients.ResultsA total of 644 articles were included for review. Gender was the most reported sociodemographic factor (70% of included studies). Reporting of other data among included studies was low: educational level (6%), socioeconomic status (2%), race (1%), ethnicity (1%), insurance status (0.3%), and geography (1%). The odds of reporting gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51), education (OR = 1.81), and geography (OR = 2.72) increased with each subsequent publication date decade; however, this trend was not seen for reporting of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or insurance. The reporting of gender was less likely to be reported in studies with the pediatric participants (OR = 0.62), level II evidence (OR = 0.14), and device programming interventional studies (OR = 0.26).ConclusionReporting of sociodemographic data, other than gender, is low among prospective clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. The lack of reporting of this key data may limit research rigor and generalizability. Clinical researchers are advised to prospectively collect these data to promote equity in cochlear implant research and clinical care.

Dataset Information

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

Publications

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets