Dataset Information

Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Standardized reporting methods facilitate comparisons between studies. Reporting of data on benefits and harms of treatments in surgical RCTs should support clinical decision-making. Correct and complete reporting of the outcomes of clinical trials is mandatory to appreciate available evidence and to inform patients properly before asking informed consent. METHODS:RCTs published between January 2005 and January 2017 in 15 leading journals comparing a surgical treatment with any other treatment were reviewed systematically. The CONSORT checklist, including the extension for harms, was used to appraise the publications. Beneficial and harmful treatment outcomes, their definitions and their precision measures were extracted. RESULTS:Of 1200 RCTs screened, 88 trials were included. For the differences in effect size of beneficial outcomes, 68 per cent of the trials reported a P value only but not a 95 per cent confidence interval. For harmful effects, this was 67 per cent. Only five of the 88 trials (6 per cent) reported a number needed to treat, and no study a number needed to harm. Only 61 per cent of the trials reported on both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of the intervention studied in the same paper. CONCLUSION:Despite CONSORT guidelines, current reporting of benefits and harms in surgical trials does not facilitate clear communication of treatment outcomes with patients. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors should ensure proper reporting of treatment benefits and harms in trials.

SUBMITTER: Stubenrouch FE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7093777 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.

Stubenrouch F E FE Cohen E S ES Bossuyt P M M PMM Koelemay M J W MJW van der Vet P C R PCR Ubbink D T DT

BJS open 20200107 2

<h4>Background</h4>Standardized reporting methods facilitate comparisons between studies. Reporting of data on benefits and harms of treatments in surgical RCTs should support clinical decision-making. Correct and complete reporting of the outcomes of clinical trials is mandatory to appreciate available evidence and to inform patients properly before asking informed consent.<h4>Methods</h4>RCTs published between January 2005 and January 2017 in 15 leading journals comparing a surgical treatment ...[more]

PMID: 32207574

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrescribing pharmacologic therapies for critically ill patients requires a careful balancing of risks and benefits. Defining, monitoring, and reporting harms that occur in clinical trials conducted in critically ill populations, however, is challenging given that the natural history of most critical illnesses includes progressive multiple organ failure and death. In this study, we assessed harms reporting in clinical trials performed in critically ill populations.MethodsRandomized, non-industry-sponsored, human clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in adult critically ill populations published between 2015 and 2018 in high-impact journals were included in this systematic review. Harms data, adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harms reporting guidelines, and restrictions on harms reporting were recorded.ResultsA total of 707 abstracts were screened with 40 trials ultimately being included in the analysis. Included trials represent 28,636 randomized patients with a median of 292 (IQR 100-546) patients per trial. The most common disease states were general critical care (33%) and sepsis (28%). Of 18 included CONSORT items, the median number met was 12 (IQR 9, 14). The most commonly missed items were adverse event (AE) severity grading definitions and AE attribution (relationship of AE to study drug), which were only reported in 35 and 38% of manuscripts, respectively. Half of the manuscripts (48%) provided definitions for recorded AEs. There were 5 studies investigating the effects of corticosteroids in sepsis, with the number of AEs reported per analyzed patient ranging from 0.01 to 1.89. AE definitions in studies of similar/equivalent interventions often varied substantially. Study protocols were available for 30/40 (75%) of studies, with 13 (43%) of those not providing any guidance regarding AE attribution.ConclusionsRandomized trials of pharmacologic interventions conducted in critically ill populations and published in high impact journals often fail to adequately describe AE definitions, severity, attribution, and collection procedures. Among trials of similar interventions in comparable populations, variation in AE collection and reporting procedures is substantial. These factors may limit a clinician's ability to accurately balance the potential benefits and harms of an intervention.

Project description:BackgroundAdverse events (AEs) in clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials or across sources for a single trial may produce inconsistent information about the adverse events associated with interventions.MethodsWe compared the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., "selection criteria"), including the number of different types of AEs reported (i.e., rather than the number of events). We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports (CSRs)) of trials for two drug-indications-gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. Electronic searches were completed in 2015. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting.ResultsWe identified 21 gabapentin and 7 quetiapine trials. We found 6 gabapentin CSRs and 2 quetiapine CSRs, all written by drug manufacturers. All CSRs reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion "occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group," while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion "occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group."ConclusionsSelection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might "cherry-pick" AEs based on results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems identified in this study.

Project description:BackgroundHereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that can lead to potentially life-threatening airway attacks. Although novel therapies for HAE treatment have become available over the past decades, a comparison of all available treatments has not yet been conducted. As such, we will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the best evidence-based treatments for the management of acute attacks and prophylaxis of HAE.MethodsThis study will include both parallel and crossover randomized controlled trials that have investigated prevention or treatment strategies for HAE attacks. We will search electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL, from inception with no language restrictions. Potential trials will be supplemented through a gray literature search. The process of study screening, selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, certainty assessment and classification of treatments will be performed independently by a pair of reviewers. Any discrepancy will be addressed through team discussion. A two-step approach of pairwise and network meta-analysis will be performed. The summarized effect estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons will be pooled using DerSimonion-Laird random-effects models. The incoherence assumption, in terms of the consistency of direct and indirect effects, will be assessed. An evidence-based synthesis will be performed, based on the magnitudes of effect size, evidence certainty, and ranking of treatment effects, with respect to treatment benefits and harms.DiscussionThis systematic review and network meta-analysis will summarize evidence-based conclusions with respect to the ratio of benefits and harms arising from interventions for the treatment of acute attacks and prophylaxis of HAE. Evidence from this network estimate could promote the rational use of interventions among people living with HAE in clinical practice settings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021251367.

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:BACKGROUND:A comprehensive overview of treatments of common fractures is missing, although it would be important for shared decision-making in clinical practice. The aim was to determine benefits and harms of surgical compared to non-surgical treatments for traumatic skeletal fractures. METHODS:We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL until November 2018, for randomized trials of surgical treatment in comparison with or in addition to non-surgical treatment of fractures in adults. For harms, only trials with patient enrollment in 2000 or later were included, while no time restriction was applied to benefits. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from full-text trials, and performed risk of bias assessment. Outcomes were self-reported pain, function, and quality of life, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Random effects model (Hedges' g) was used. RESULTS:Out of 28375 records screened, we included 61 trials and performed meta-analysis on 12 fracture types in 11 sites: calcaneus, clavicula, femur, humerus, malleolus, metacarpus, metatarsus, radius, rib, scaphoideum, and thoraco-lumbar spine. Seven other fracture types only had one trial available. For distal radius fractures, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, n = 378 participants) for function, favoring surgery, however, with greater risk of SAEs (RR = 3.10 (1.42 to 6.77), n = 436). For displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures, SMD was 0.64 (0.13 to 1.16) for function (n = 244) and 0.19 (0.01 to 0.36) for quality of life (n = 506) favoring surgery. Surgery was associated with a smaller risk of SAE than non-surgical treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures (RR = 0.62 (0.42 to 0.92), n = 1394). None of the other comparisons showed statistical significance differences and insufficient data existed for most of the common fracture types. CONCLUSIONS:Of 12 fracture types with more than one trial, only two demonstrated a difference in favor of surgery (distal radius fractures and displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures), one of which demonstrated a greater risk of harms in the surgical group (distal radius fractures). Our results highlight the current paucity of high-quality randomized trials for common fracture types and a considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias in several of the available trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42015020805.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.

Publications

Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets