Dataset Information

Outcome Reporting Variability in Trials of Chinese Medicine for Hyperlipidemia: A Systematic Review for Developing a Core Outcome Set.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Hyperlipidemia is an underlying process behind cardiovascular disease. Chinese medicine (CM) may be effective in treating hyperlipidemia, but there is a lack of studies with high methodological quality. A major reason for this is heterogeneity in outcome reporting. Therefore, this study explores the degree of outcome reporting variation in CM trials for hyperlipidemia. It then generates a list of potentially important outcomes for developing a core outcome set (COS).

Methods

A systematic review of literature focusing on studies of CM for hyperlipidemia was conducted. Outcomes were listed verbatim and grouped into 8 domains. Outcome frequency and definition uniformity were analyzed.

Results

3,702 studies and 452 individual outcomes were identified. These outcomes were reported 27,328 times, of which 1.6% were reported as primary outcomes, and 13.3% were defined. The most frequent outcome was total triglyceride, represented in 86.7% of the studies, followed by total cholesterol (86.0%), total effective rate (75.1%), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (73.2%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (60.5%). However, 43.6% of outcomes were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was "pathological or pathophysiological outcomes," which included 67.0% of outcomes. Of the "response rate related outcomes" domain, total effective rate was the most frequently reported outcome (n = 2,780), and 95.3% of the studies gave a clear definition. However, these definitions were often contradictory. Only 10 papers reported cardiovascular events, 3 of which referred to them as primary outcomes. Moreover, ten patient-reported outcomes were reported in the retrieved literature 19 times in total. The majority of the outcomes did not report measurement instruments (MIs) (269/453, 59.4%). MIs of the surrogate outcomes were reported more frequently.

Conclusion

Outcome reporting in CM trials for hyperlipidemia is inconsistent and ill-defined, creating barriers to data synthesis and comparison. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for CM trials for hyperlipidemia.

SUBMITTER: Li G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8211496 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionChronic heart failure (CHF) is a serious and advanced stage of various cardiovascular diseases and portends poor prognosis. An increase in clinical studies has reported the effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). For example, intravenous Chinese medicine can significantly improve cardiac function and biomarkers in patients with CHF. However, there exists inconsistency, lack of practicality and unclear reporting of outcomes in these clinical trials causing difficulty in the comparison of results across similar studies during data synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) can help in the standardisation of outcomes reported across studies from the same healthcare area. The aim of this study is to develop a COS on TCM for CHF (COS-TCM-CHF) to reduce heterogeneity in reporting and improve quality assessment in clinical trials to support data synthesis in addressing the effectiveness of TCM treatment.Methods and analysisThis study will include constructing an outcome pool which will identify potential outcomes through systematic reviews of TCM randomised clinical trials, two clinical registry databases, semi-structured interviews of patients and the clinicians' questionnaire. According to the characteristics of TCM and a taxonomy recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, all outcomes in the outcome pool will be classified into different domains. A preliminary list of outcomes which will then be used in the Delphi survey is generated using a certain criteria based on the length of the pool. The Delphi survey will include two rounds with seven key stakeholder groups to select candidate items for a consensus meeting. A final COS-TCM-CHF will be developed at a face-to-face consensus meeting involving representatives from the different stakeholders.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval of this study has been granted by Evidence-based Medicine Centre of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Ethics Committee (TJUTCMEC201200002). We will disseminate our research findings of the final COS on the website of Chinese Clinical Trials for Core Outcome Set, with open access publications and present at international conferences to reach a wide range of knowledge users.Trial registration numberhttp://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1486.

Project description:IntroductionMyocardial infarction (MI) is the most dangerous complication in patients with coronary heart disease. In China, there is an increasing number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treating MI. However, the inconsistency of outcome reporting means that a large number of clinical trials cannot be included in systematic reviews to provide the best evidence for clinical practice. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future TCM clinical trials of MI, which may improve the consistency of outcome reporting and facilitate the synthesis of data across studies in systematic reviews.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of MI clinical trials with any intervention. Semistructured interviews will be conducted to obtain the perspectives of patients with MI. The outcomes from the systematic review and semistructured interviews will be grouped and used to develop a questionnaire. The questionnaire will be developed as a supplement for the TCM syndromes of MI and will be constructed from the results of a systematic review, existing medical records and a cross-sectional study. Then two rounds of the Delphi survey will be conducted with different stakeholders (TCM experts and Western medicine experts in cardiovascular disease, methodologists, magazine editors and patients) to determine the importance of the outcomes. Only the TCM experts will need to response to the questionnaire for core TCM syndromes. A face-to-face consensus meeting will be conducted to create a final COS and recommend measurement time for each outcome.Ethics and disseminationThis project has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. The final COS will be published and freely available.Trial registration numberThis study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database as study 1243 (available at: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1243).

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:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignThis study was a systematic review.Data sourcesClinical 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 criteriaRandomised 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 synthesisThe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionOutcome reporting in NVAF is inconsistent. Thus, developing a COS that can be used in clinical trials is necessary.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools - a 'core outcome set' (COS) - to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients. METHODS:The first of three stages in the study will identify a 'long-list' of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation. DISCUSSION:This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field.