Dataset Information

Outcome reporting from clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with traditional Chinese medicine or Western medicine: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine variation in outcomes, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) and measurement times in clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in developing a core outcome set (COS) in this field.

Design

This study was a systematic review.

Data sources

Clinical trials published between January 2015 and March 2019 were obtained from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were considered. Interventions included traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. The required treatment duration or follow-up time was ?4 weeks. The required sample size was ?30?and?50 in each group in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. We excluded trials that aimed to investigate the outcome of complications of NVAF, to assess the mechanisms or pharmacokinetics, or for which full text could not be acquired.

Data extraction and synthesis

The general information and outcomes, OMIs and measurement times were extracted. The methodological and outcome reporting quality were assessed. The results were analysed by descriptive analysis.

Results

A total of 218 articles were included from 25?255 articles. For clinical trials of antiarrhythmic therapy, 69 outcomes from 16 outcome domains were reported, and 28 (31.82%, 28/88) outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was ultrasonic cardiogram. Thirty-one outcomes (44.93%, 31/69) were provided definitions or OMIs; the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 20 with a median of 3. For clinical trials of anticoagulation therapy, 82 outcomes from 18 outcome domains were reported; 38 (29.23%, 38/130) outcomes were reported only once. The most frequently reported outcome was ischaemic stroke. Forty (48.78%, 40/82) outcomes were provided OMIs or definitions; and the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 27 with a median of 8.

Conclusion

Outcome reporting in NVAF is inconsistent. Thus, developing a COS that can be used in clinical trials is necessary.

SUBMITTER: Qiu R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6720335 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcome reporting from clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with traditional Chinese medicine or Western medicine: a systematic review.

Qiu Ruijin R Hu Jiayuan J Huang Ya Y Han Songjie S Zhong Changming C Li Min M He Tianmai T Lin Yiyi Y Guan Manke M Chen Jing J Shang Hongcai H

BMJ open 20190830 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine variation in outcomes, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) and measurement times in clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in developing a core outcome set (COS) in this field.<h4>Design</h4>This study was a systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>Clinical trials published between January 2015 and March 2019 were obtained from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database, the China N ...[more]

PMID: 31471437

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine are being conducted in the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in China. However, the heterogeneity of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments has produced little evidence for traditional Chinese medicine in treating NVAF because many trials cannot be included in a meta-analysis. The majority of the trials did not report endpoint outcomes, side effects or other important outcomes for patients, which makes it difficult to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine. Therefore, it is important to develop a core outcome set (COS). Although there are two related COSs for clinical trials of atrial fibrillation, the methodology is limited, and the perspectives of Chinese experts and patients are unclear. Therefore, we will develop a COS and recommend outcome measurement instruments after finishing the COS, which can be used for clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine in NVAF.Methods/designThe method of the study will include eight stages led by a national multidisciplinary Steering Committee: (1) A systematic review will be developed to identify currently reported outcomes and traditional Chinese medicine syndromes in clinical trials of NVAF, (2) Semi-structured interviews of patients will be conducted to fill gaps in potential outcomes, (3) Traditional Chinese medicine syndrome names will be identified from medical records, (4) A dataset of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome names will be developed, (5) The investigation of traditional Chinese medicine syndromes will be conducted from cross-sectional study, (6) Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be carried out, (7) A consensus meeting will be conducted to develop a COS, and (8) Recommendations of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs), which should be used in the COS, will be developed.DiscussionThe COS will improve the consistency of outcome reporting and reduce the reporting bias in NVAF clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine to improve the value of traditional Chinese medicine clinical trials.Trial registrationThis study is not a clinical trial, so it is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (COMET). Registration number: 941 . Registered on 22 December 2016.

Project description:Background:Development of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials for COVID-19 is urgent because of the pandemic wreaking havoc worldwide and the heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials. Methods:A preliminary list of outcomes was developed after a systematic review of protocols of clinical trials for COVID-19. Then, two rounds of the Delphi survey were conducted. Stakeholders were traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) experts, Western medicine (WM) experts, nurses, and the public. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were also invited to participate in a questionnaire written in understandable language. Then different stakeholders participated in a consensus meeting by video conference to vote. Results:Ninety-seven eligible study protocols were identified from 160 clinical trials. Seventy-six outcomes were identified from TCM clinical trials and 126 outcomes were identified from WM clinical trials. Finally, 145 outcomes were included in the first round of the Delphi survey. Then, a COS for clinical trials of TCM and WM was developed. The COS included clinical outcomes (recovery/improvement/progression/death), etiology (SARS-CoV-2 nucleic-acid tests, viral load), inflammatory factor (C-reactive protein), vital signs (temperature, respiration), blood and lymphatic-system parameters (lymphocytes, virus antibody), respiratory outcomes (pulmonary imaging, blood oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, mechanical ventilation, oxygen intake, pneumonia severity index), clinical efficacy (prevalence of preventing patients with mild-to-moderate disease progressing to severe disease), and symptoms (clinical symptom score). Outcomes were recommended according to different types of disease. Outcome measurement instruments/definitions were also recommended. Conclusion:Though there are some limitations for the research, such as insufficient patients and the public involvement, and the unbalanced stakeholders' region, the COS for COVID-19 may improve consistency of outcome reporting in clinical trials. It also should be updated with research progression.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) should be registered in a publicly accessible international trial register and report on all outcomes. We systematically assessed and evaluated TCM trials in registries with their subsequent publications.ObjectiveTo describe the characteristics of TCM trials, estimate bias risk and outcome-reporting bias in clinical trials.Data sources and study selectionFifteen trial registries were searched from their inception to July 2012 to identify randomised trials on TCM including Chinese herbs, acupuncture and/or moxibustion, cupping, tuina, qigong, etc.Data extractionWe extracted data including TCM specialty and treated disease/conditions from the registries and searched for subsequent publications in PubMed and Chinese databases. We compared information in the registries of completed trials with any publications focusing on study design, sample size, randomisation, bias risk including reporting bias from the register protocol.Results1096 registered randomised trials were identified evaluating TCM, of which 505 were completed studies (46.1%). The most frequent conditions were pain (13.3%), musculoskeletal (11.7%), nervous (8.7%), digestive (7.1%), circulatory (6.5%), respiratory (6.3%), mental and behavioural disorders (6.2%) and cancer (6.0%). The trial register data identified parallel, phase II/III randomised trials with sample size estimations and blinding, but limited information about randomisation (sequence generation and allocation concealment). Comparing trial registration data of 115 completed trials (22.8%) with their subsequent 136 publications, inconsistencies were identified in one or more of the following: sample size (11%), outcome assessor blinding (37.5%), primary outcomes (29%) and safety (28%) reporting.ConclusionsIncreasing numbers of clinical trials investigating a variety of TCM interventions have been registered in international trial registries. The study design of registered TCM trials has improved in estimating sample size, use of blinding and placebos. However, selective outcome reporting is widespread and similar to conventional medicine and therefore study conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

Dataset Information

Outcome reporting from clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with traditional Chinese medicine or Western medicine: a systematic review.

Objectives

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Outcome reporting from clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with traditional Chinese medicine or Western medicine: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets