Dataset Information

Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.

Methods

Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.

Results

147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).

Conclusions

This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017060908.

SUBMITTER: Young AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6398699 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incidence and characteristics of randomised controlled trials that report using the modified intention to treat approach, and how the approach is described.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, HighWire Press, Science-Direct, Ingenta, Medscape, BioMed Central, Springer, and Wiley, from inception to December 2006.Main outcome measuresIncidence of trials in which use of modified intention to treat was reported, and how the approach was described (classified according to the type and number of deviations from the intention to treat approach).Results475 randomised controlled trials reported use of a modified intention to treat analysis. Of these, 76 (16%) were published in five highly cited general medical journals. The incidence of all trials that reported use of modified intention to treat published in journals indexed in Medline increased from 0.006% in 1982-6 to 0.5% in 2002-6 (P<0.001 for linear trend). When the description of the modified intention to treat was examined in each trial, 192 (40%) reported one type of deviation from the intention to treat approach, 261 (55%) reported two or more types, and 22 (5%) did not describe any type. In 266 (56%) of the trials the deviation was related to the treatment received, in 196 (41%) to a post baseline assessment, in 118 (25%) to a baseline assessment, in 108 (23%) to a target condition, and in 23 (5%) to follow-up. Post-randomisation exclusions occurred in 380 (80%) trials. The results reported by 270 of the 352 (77%) superiority trials favoured the drug under investigation. All of the 123 trials using equivalence or non-inferiority methods to investigate interventions reported results that favoured their assumptions.ConclusionsRandomised controlled trials that report using a modified intention to treat are increasingly being published in the medical literature. The descriptions of such an approach were ambiguous, and may cover any type of descriptions for exclusion, such as missing data and deviation from protocol. Explicit statements about post-randomisation exclusions should replace the ambiguous terminology of modified intention to treat.

Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) continue to provide the best evidence for treatment options, but the quality of reporting in RCTs and the completeness rate of reporting of surgical outcomes and complication data vary widely. The aim of this study was to measure the quality of reporting of the surgical outcome and complication data in RCTs of rectal cancer treatment and whether this quality has changed over time.MethodsEligible articles with the keywords ("rectal cancer" OR "rectal carcinoma") AND ("radiation" OR "radiotherapy") that were RCTs and published in the English, German, Polish, or Italian language were identified by reviewing all abstracts published from 1982 through 2022. Two authors independently screened and analysed all studies. The quality of the surgical outcome and complication data was assessed based on fourteen criteria, and the quality of RCTs was evaluated based on a modified Jadad scale. The primary outcome was the quality of reporting in RCTs and the completeness rate of reporting of surgical results and complication data.ResultsA total of 340 articles reporting multimodal therapy outcomes for 143,576 rectal cancer patients were analysed. A total of 7 articles (2%) met all 14 reporting criteria, 13 met 13 criteria, 27 met from 11 to 12 criteria, 36 met from 9 to 10 criteria, 76 met from 7 to 8 criteria, and most articles met fewer than 7 criteria (mean 5.5 criteria). Commonly underreported criteria included complication severity (15% of articles), macroscopic integrity of mesorectal excision (17% of articles), length of stay (18% of articles), number of lymph nodes (21% of articles), distance between the tumour and circumferential resection margin (CRM) (26% of articles), surgical radicality according to the site of the primary tumour (R0 vs. R1 + R2) (29% of articles), and CRM status (38% of articles).ConclusionInconsistent surgical outcome and complication data reporting in multimodal rectal cancer treatment RCTs is standard. Standardised reporting of clinical and oncological outcomes should be established to facilitate comparing studies and results of related research topics.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment non-adherence in randomised trials refers to situations where some participants do not receive their allocated treatment as intended. For cluster randomised trials, where the unit of randomisation is a group of participants, non-adherence may occur at the cluster or individual level. When non-adherence occurs, randomisation no longer guarantees that the relationship between treatment receipt and outcome is unconfounded, and the power to detect the treatment effects in intention-to-treat analysis may be reduced. Thus, recording adherence and estimating the causal treatment effect adequately are of interest for clinical trials.ObjectivesTo assess the extent of reporting of non-adherence issues in published cluster trials and to establish which methods are currently being used for addressing non-adherence, if any, and whether clustering is accounted for in these.MethodsWe systematically reviewed 132 cluster trials published in English in 2011 previously identified through a search in PubMed.ResultsOne-hundred and twenty three cluster trials were included in this systematic review. Non-adherence was reported in 56 cluster trials. Among these, 19 reported a treatment efficacy estimate: per protocol in 15 and as treated in 4. No study discussed the assumptions made by these methods, their plausibility or the sensitivity of the results to deviations from these assumptions.LimitationsThe year of publication of the cluster trials included in this review (2011) could be considered a limitation of this study; however, no new guidelines regarding the reporting and the handling of non-adherence for cluster trials have been published since. In addition, a single reviewer undertook the data extraction. To mitigate this, a second reviewer conducted a validation of the extraction process on 15 randomly selected reports. Agreement was satisfactory (93%).ConclusionDespite the recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement extension to cluster randomised trials, treatment adherence is under-reported. Among the trials providing adherence information, there was substantial variation in how adherence was defined, handled and reported. Researchers should discuss the assumptions required for the results to be interpreted causally and whether these are scientifically plausible in their studies. Sensitivity analyses to study the robustness of the results to departures from these assumptions should be performed.