Dataset Information

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of survival analyses of tuberculosis outcomes in Africa.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Survival analyses methods (SAMs) are central to analysing time-to-event outcomes. Appropriate application and reporting of such methods are important to ensure correct interpretation of the data. In this study, we systematically review the application and reporting of SAMs in studies of tuberculosis (TB) patients in Africa. It is the first review to assess the application and reporting of SAMs in this context.

Methods

Systematic review of studies involving TB patients from Africa published between January 2010 and April 2020 in English language. Studies were eligible if they reported use of SAMs. Application and reporting of SAMs were evaluated based on seven author-defined criteria.

Results

Seventy-six studies were included with patient numbers ranging from 56 to 182,890. Forty-three (57%) studies involved a statistician/epidemiologist. The number of published papers per year applying SAMs increased from two in 2010 to 18 in 2019 (P = 0.004). Sample size estimation was not reported by 67 (88%) studies. A total of 22 (29%) studies did not report summary follow-up time. The survival function was commonly presented using Kaplan-Meier survival curves (n = 51, (67%) studies) and group comparisons were performed using log-rank tests (n = 44, (58%) studies). Sixty seven (91%), 3 (4.1%) and 4 (5.4%) studies reported Cox proportional hazard, competing risk and parametric survival regression models, respectively. A total of 37 (49%) studies had hierarchical clustering, of which 28 (76%) did not adjust for the clustering in the analysis. Reporting was adequate among 4.0, 1.3 and 6.6% studies for sample size estimation, plotting of survival curves and test of survival regression underlying assumptions, respectively. Forty-five (59%), 52 (68%) and 73 (96%) studies adequately reported comparison of survival curves, follow-up time and measures of effect, respectively.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting survival analyses remains inadequate despite its increasing application. Because similar reporting deficiencies may be common in other diseases in low- and middle-income countries, reporting guidelines, additional training, and more capacity building are needed along with more vigilance by reviewers and journal editors.

SUBMITTER: Ngari MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8080365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also aimed to identify characteristics predictive of review quality.BackgroundSystematic reviews summarise evidence by combining sources, but are potentially prone to bias. To counter this, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was published to aid in reporting. Similarly, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) measurement tool was designed to appraise methodology. The paediatric surgical literature has seen an increasing number of reviews over the past decade, but quality has not been evaluated.MethodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review with a priori design to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in paediatric surgery. From 01/2010 to 06/2016, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Web of Science, Google Scholar, reference lists and journals. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed conduct and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA. Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted author, journal and article characteristics, and used them in exploratory analysis to determine which variables predict quality.Results112 articles fulfilled eligibility criteria (53 systematic reviews; 59 meta-analyses). Overall, 68% AMSTAR and 56.8% PRISMA items were reported adequately. Poorest scores were identified with regards a priori design, inclusion of structured summaries, including the grey literature, citing excluded articles and evaluating bias. 13 reviews were pre-registered and 6 in PRISMA-endorsing journals. The following predicted quality in univariate analysis:, word count, Cochrane review, journal h-index, impact factor, journal endorses PRISMA, PRISMA adherence suggested in author guidance, article mentions PRISMA, review includes comparison of interventions and review registration. The latter three variables were significant in multivariate regression.ConclusionsThere are gaps in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in paediatric surgery. More endorsement by journals of the PRISMA guideline may improve review quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to paediatric clinicians.

Project description:BackgroundDespite more than 60 years of clinical trials, tuberculosis (TB) still causes a high global burden of mortality and morbidity. Treatment currently requires multiple drugs in combination, taken over a prolonged period. New drugs are needed to shorten treatment duration, prevent resistance and reduce adverse events. However, to improve on current methodology in drug development, a more complete understanding of the existing clinical evidence base is required.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken to summarise outcomes reported in phase III trials of patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary TB. A systematic search of databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and LILACs) was conducted on 30 November 2017 to retrieve relevant peer-reviewed articles. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. This systematic review considered all reported outcomes.ResultsOf 248 included studies, 229 considered "on-treatment" outcomes whilst 148 reported "off-treatment" outcomes. There was wide variation and ambiguity in the definition of reported outcomes, including their relationship to treatment and in the time points evaluated. Additional challenges were observed regarding the analysis approach taken (per protocol versus intention to treat) and the varying durations of "intensive" and "continuation" phases of treatment. Bacteriological outcomes were most frequently reported but radiological and clinical data were often included as an implicit or explicit component of the overall definition of outcome.ConclusionsTerminology used to define long-term outcomes in phase III trials is inconsistent, reflecting evolving differences in protocols and practices. For successful future cumulative meta-analysis, the findings of this review suggest that greater availability of individual patient data and the development of a core outcome set would be desirable. In the meantime, we propose a simple and logical approach which should facilitate combination of key evidence and inform improvements in the methodology of TB drug development and clinical trials.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020.Review methodsIntervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications.Results22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range -0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger's test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial.ConclusionsThe results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.

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:BackgroundThe QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.ObjectivesTo evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.MethodsWe performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).ResultsOf 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were "protocol and registration", "risk of bias across studies", and "additional analyses" in both methods and results sections.ConclusionsSRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.

Project description:BackgroundBefore considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures.Results11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models.ConclusionsThe vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last decade there have been a number of guidelines published, aimed at improving the quality of reporting in published studies and reviews. In systematic reviews this may be measured by their compliance with the PRISMA statement. This review aims to evaluate the quality of reporting in published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests, using the PRISMA statement and establish whether there has been a measurable improvement over time.MethodsEight databases were searched for reviews published prior to 31(st) December 2008. Studies were selected if they evaluated a diagnostic test, measured performance, searched two or more databases, stated the search terms and inclusion criteria, and used a statistical method to summarise a test's performance. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and items of the PRISMA statement. To measure the change in the quality of reporting over time, PRISMA items for two periods of equal duration were compared.ResultsCompliance with the PRISMA statement was generally poor: none of the reviews completely adhered to all 27 checklist items. Of the 236 meta-analyses included following selection: only 2(1%) reported the study protocol; 59(25%) reported the searches used; 76(32%) reported the results of a risk of bias assessment; and 82(35%) reported the abstract as a structured summary. Only 11 studies were published before 2000. Thus, the impact of QUOROM on the quality of reporting was not evaluated. However, the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 (covering 93% of studies) were compared using relative risks (RR). There was an increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on five PRISMA items: eligibility criteria (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.27); risk of bias across studies (methods) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.34 - 2.44); study selection results (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.09); results of individual studies (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.72); risk of bias across studies (results) (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20 - 2.25).ConclusionAlthough there has been an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic research, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting which future reviewers need to address if readers are to trust the validity of the reported findings.