Dataset Information

Analysis of reporting completeness in exercise cancer trials: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Exercise is an effective therapeutic intervention for cancer survivors. Concerns about the completeness of reporting of exercise interventions have been raised in the literature, but without any formal analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of exercise interventions for cancer survivors in a large sample of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS:We developed a pre-defined protocol. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for exercise trials in oncology between 2010 and 2017. Pairs of independent researchers screened the records, extracted study characteristics, and assessed 16 items on the TIDieR checklist (i.e., the 12 items, with item 5 divided into two and item 8 divided into four). For each of these items, the percentage of interventions in the included studies that reported the item was calculated. RESULTS:We included 131 RCTs reporting 138 interventions in the analysis. Breast cancer was the most common type of cancer (69, 50%), and aerobic exercise was the most studied exercise modality (43, 30%) followed by combined aerobic and resistance training (40, 28%). Completeness of reporting ranged from 42 to 96% among the TIDieR items; none of the items was fully reported. 'Intervention length' was the most reported item across interventions (133, 96%), followed by 'rationale' (131, 95%), whereas 'provider' (58, 42%) and 'how well (planned)' (63, 46%) were the two least reported items. Half of the TIDieR items were completely reported in 50 to 70% of the interventions, and only four items were reported in more than 80% of the interventions (Items 2 and 8a to c). The seven items deemed to be core for replication (Items 3 to 9) exhibited a mean reporting of 71%, ranging from 42 to 96%. CONCLUSION:Exercise training interventions for cancer survivors are incompletely reported across RCTs published between 2010 and 2017. The reporting of information about the provider, materials, and modifications require urgent improvements. Stronger reporting will enhance usability of trial reports by both healthcare providers and survivors, and will help to reduce research waste.

SUBMITTER: Meneses-Echavez JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6889190 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of reporting completeness in exercise cancer trials: a systematic review.

Meneses-Echavez Jose Francisco JF Rodriguez-Prieto Indira I Elkins Mark M Martínez-Torres Javier J Nguyen Lien L Bidonde Julia J

BMC medical research methodology 20191202 1

<h4>Background</h4>Exercise is an effective therapeutic intervention for cancer survivors. Concerns about the completeness of reporting of exercise interventions have been raised in the literature, but without any formal analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of exercise interventions for cancer survivors in a large sample of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a pre-defined protocol. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for exercise t ...[more]

PMID: 31791246

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesReporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.Study selectionEnglish language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).Data extractionPotentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.Results101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.ConclusionsThe completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.Systematic review registrationNot registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

Project description:BackgroundReporting of health research is often inadequate and incomplete. Complete and transparent reporting is imperative to enable readers to assess the validity of research findings for use in healthcare and policy decision-making. To this end, many guidelines, aimed at improving the quality of health research reports, have been developed for reporting a variety of research types. Despite efforts, many reporting guidelines are underused. In order to increase their uptake, evidence of their effectiveness is important and will provide authors, peer reviewers and editors with an important resource for use and implementation of pertinent guidance. The objective of this study was to assess whether endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals influences the completeness of reporting of health studies.MethodsGuidelines providing a minimum set of items to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed with explicit methodology, and using a consensus process will be identified from an earlier systematic review and from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's reporting guidelines library. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and Scopus will be searched for evaluations of those reporting guidelines; relevant evaluations from the recently conducted CONSORT systematic review will also be included. Single data extraction with 10% verification of study characteristics, 20% of outcomes and complete verification of aspects of study validity will be carried out. We will include evaluations of reporting guidelines that assess the completeness of reporting: (1) before and after journal endorsement, and/or (2) between endorsing and non-endorsing journals. For a given guideline, analyses will be conducted for individual and the total sum of items. When possible, standard, pooled effects with 99% confidence intervals using random effects models will be calculated.DiscussionEvidence on which guidelines have been evaluated and which are associated with improved completeness of reporting is important for various stakeholders, including editors who consider which guidelines to endorse in their journal editorial policies.

Project description:ObjectiveEvaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesEmbase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO).Study selectionRCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15.Review methodsOverall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately.FindingsForty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013).Conclusions and relevanceResearch reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations.Prospero registration numberCRD42018095033.

Project description:ObjectiveThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommends reporting adverse events (AEs) and dropouts (DOs) with their definitions. The purpose of this study was to identify how AEs and DOs were reported in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic exercise for knee osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsData sources were the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL. Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials of therapeutic exercise for knee OA published from January 1, 1980, through July 23, 2020. Researchers independently extracted participant and intervention characteristics and determined whether a clear statement of and reasons for AEs and DOs existed. The primary outcome was exercise-related harm. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scoring described study quality and risk of bias. Descriptive and inferential statistics characterized results. Meta-analysis was not performed due to data heterogeneity.ResultsOne hundred and thirteen studies (152 arms) from 25 countries were included, with 5909 participants exercising. PEDro scores ranged from 4 to 9. Exercise intensity was not specified in 57.9% of exercise arms. Fifty studies (44.2%) included an AE statement and 24 (21.2%) reported AEs, yielding 297 patients. One hundred and three studies (91.2%) had a DO statement. Sixteen studies (15.5%) provided reasons for DOs that could be classified as AEs among 39 patients, yielding a 13.1% increase in AEs. Thus, 336 patients (6.0%) experienced exercise-related harm among studies with a clear statement of AEs and DOs. A significant difference existed in misclassification of DOs pre- and post-CONSORT-2010 (12.2% vs 3.1%; $\chi^{2}_{1} = 21.2$).ConclusionsIn some studies, the reason for DOs could be considered AEs, leading to potential underreporting of harm. Improvements in reporting of harm were found pre- and post-CONSORT-2010. Greater clarity regarding AE and DO definitions and therapeutic exercise intensity are needed to determine safe dosing and mode of therapeutic exercise for knee OA.ImpactMore adherence to the CONSORT statement is needed regarding reporting of and defining of AEs, DOs, and therapeutic exercise intensity; however, despite this, therapeutic exercise seems to be associated with minimal risk of harm.

Dataset Information

Analysis of reporting completeness in exercise cancer trials: a systematic review.

Publications

Analysis of reporting completeness in exercise cancer trials: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets