Dataset Information

Noninferiority Designed Cardiovascular Trials in Highest-Impact Journals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Noninferiority trials are increasingly being performed. However, little is known about their methodological quality. We sought to characterize noninferiority cardiovascular trials published in the highest-impact journals, features that may bias results toward noninferiority, features related to reporting of noninferiority trials, and the time trends.

Methods

We identified cardiovascular noninferiority trials published in JAMA, Lancet, or New England Journal of Medicine from 1990 to 2016. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Data elements included the noninferiority margin and the success of studies in achieving noninferiority. The proportion of trials showing major or minor features that may have affected the noninferiority inference was determined. Major factors included the lack of presenting the results in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol/as-treated cohorts, α>0.05, the new intervention not being compared with the best alternative, not justifying the noninferiority margin, and exclusion or loss of ≥10% of the cohort. Minor factors included suboptimal blinding, allocation concealment, and others.

Results

From 2544 screened studies, we identified 111 noninferiority cardiovascular trials. Noninferiority margins varied widely: risk differences of 0.4% to 25%, hazard ratios of 1.05 to 2.85, odds ratios of 1.1 to 2.0, and relative risks of 1.1 to 1.8. Eighty-six trials claimed noninferiority, of which 20 showed superiority, whereas 23 (21.1%) did not show noninferiority, of which 8 also demonstrated inferiority. Only 7 (6.3%) trials were considered low risk for all the major and minor biasing factors. Among common major factors for bias, 41 (37%) did not confirm the findings in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol/as-treated cohorts and 4 (3.6%) reported discrepant results between intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Forty-three (38.7%) did not justify the noninferiority margin. Overall, 27 (24.3%) underenrolled or had >10% exclusions. Sixty trials (54.0%) were open label. Allocation concealment was not maintained or unclear in 11 (9.9%). Publication of noninferiority trials increased over time (P<0.001). Fifty-two (46.8%) were published after 2010 and had a lower risk of methodological or reporting limitations for major (P=0.03) and minor factors (P=0.002).

Conclusions

Noninferiority trials in highest-impact journals commonly conclude noninferiority of the tested intervention, but vary markedly in the selected noninferiority margin, and frequently have limitations that may impact the inference related to noninferiority.

SUBMITTER: Bikdeli B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8416048 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Well-conducted meta-analyses are considered to be at the top of the evidence-based hierarchy pyramid, with an expansion of these publications within the cardiovascular research arena. There are limited data evaluating the trends and quality of such publications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological rigor and temporal trends of cardiovascular medicine-related meta-analyses published in the highest impact journals. Methods and Results Using the Medline database, we retrieved cardiovascular medicine-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, The British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of American College of Cardiology between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. Among 6406 original investigations published during the study period, meta-analyses represented 422 (6.6%) articles, with an annual decline in the proportion of published meta-analyses (8.7% in 2012 versus 4.6% in 2018, Ptrend=0.002). A substantial number of studies failed to incorporate elements of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses or Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines (51.9%) and only a minority of studies (10.4%) were registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). Fewer manuscripts failed to incorporate the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses or Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology elements over time (60.2% in 2012 versus 40.0% in 2018, Ptrend<0.001) whereas the number of meta-analyses registered at PROSPERO has increased (2.4% in 2013 versus 17.5% in 2018, Ptrend<0.001). Conclusions The proportion of cardiovascular medicine-related meta-analyses published in the highest impact journals has declined over time. Although there is an increasing trend in compliance with quality-based guidelines, the overall compliance remains low.

Project description:BackgroundNoninferiority trials are increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine, but their reporting and interpretation are challenging, particularly when an absolute risk difference is used as noninferiority margin.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the effect of using absolute rather than relative noninferiority margins in cardiovascular trials.MethodsWe reviewed noninferiority trials presented at major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2022 and published within the same period. Based on the actual versus anticipated event rates in the control group, we recalculated the absolute noninferiority margin and re-assessed the trial results. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of trials with a different interpretation after recalculation. Additionally, we analyzed the conclusion statements of these trials to determine if cautionary notes for the interpretation of study results were included.ResultsWe analyzed a total of 768 trials, of which 88 had a noninferiority design and 66 used an absolute noninferiority margin. Of 48 comparisons from 45 trials qualifying for the analysis, 11 (22.9%) had divergent results after recalculation of the absolute noninferiority margin based on the observed rather than anticipated event rate. Ten trials originally claiming noninferiority, did not meet it after the margin recalculation. All of them did not include statements suggesting cautionary interpretation of the study results in the conclusion section. Compared with the other trials, these displayed a larger median difference between anticipated and recalculated noninferiority margins (44.7% [IQR: 38.6%-56.7%] vs 15.3% [IQR: -1.5% to 28.9%]; P < 0.001).ConclusionsRecalculating noninferiority margins based on actual event rates, rather than anticipated ones, led to different outcomes in approximately 1 out of 4 cardiovascular trials, with most divergent trials lacking cautionary interpretation. These findings emphasize the importance of using or supplementing the relative noninferiority margin, particularly in studies with significant deviations between observed and expected event rates. This underscores the critical need for enhanced methodological and reporting standards in noninferiority trials, especially those employing absolute margins.

Project description:BackgroundCritical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often published in high-impact journals, whether general journals [the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)] or critical care journals [Intensive Care Medicine (ICM), the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), Critical Care Medicine (CCM)]. As rejection occurs in up to 97% of cases, it might be appropriate to assess pre-submission probability of being published. The objective of this study was to develop and internally validate a simplified score predicting whether an ongoing trial stands a chance of being published in high-impact general journals.MethodsA cohort of critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2018 in the three highest impact medical journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or the three highest impact critical care journals (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM) was split into two samples (derivation cohort, validation cohort) to develop and internally validate the simplified score. Primary outcome was journal of publication assessed as high-impact general journal (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or critical care journal (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM).ResultsA total of 968 critical care RCTs were included in the predictive cohort and split into a derivation cohort (n = 510) and a validation cohort (n = 458). In the derivation cohort, the sample size (P value < 0.001), the number of centers involved (P value = 0.01), mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.002) or a composite item including mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.004), and topic [ventilation (P value < 0.001) or miscellaneous (P value < 0.001)] were independent factors predictive of publication in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals. The SCOTI score (Sample size, Centers, Outcome, Topic, and International score) was developed with an area under the ROC curve of 0.84 (95% Confidence Interval, 0.80-0.88) in validation by split sample.ConclusionsThe SCOTI score, developed and validated by split sample, accurately predicts the chances of a critical care RCT being published in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals.

Project description:Importance:Multiple analyses in a clinical trial can increase the probability of inaccurately concluding that there is a statistically significant treatment effect. However, to date, it is unknown how many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) perform adjustments for multiple comparisons, the lack of which could lead to erroneous findings. Objectives:To assess the prevalence of multiplicity and whether appropriate multiplicity adjustments were performed among cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 medical journals with a high impact factor. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study, cardiovascular RCTs were selected from all over the world, characterized as North America, Western Europe, multiregional, and rest of the world. Data were collected from past issues of 3 cardiovascular journals (Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology) and 3 general medicine journals (JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine) with high impact factors published between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2018. Supplements and trial protocols of each of the included RCTs were also searched for multiplicity. Data were analyzed December 20 to 27, 2018. Exposures:Data from the selected RCTs were extracted and verified independently by 2 researchers using a structured data instrument. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer helped to achieve consensus. An RCT was considered to have multiple treatment groups if it had more than 2 arms; multiple outcomes were defined as having more than 1 primary outcome, and multiple analyses were defined as analysis of the same outcome variable in multiple ways. Multiplicity was examined only for the analysis of the primary end point. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes of interest were percentages of primary analyses that performed multiplicity adjustment of primary end points. Results:Of 511 cardiovascular RCTs included in this analysis, 300 (58.7%) had some form of multiplicity; of these 300, only 85 (28.3%) adjusted for multiplicity. Intervention type and funding source had no statistically significant association with the reporting of multiplicity risk adjustment. Trials that assessed mortality vs nonmortality outcomes were more likely to contain a multiplicity risk in their primary analysis (66.3% [177 of 267] vs 50.4% [123 of 244]; P?<?.001), and larger trials vs smaller trials were less likely to make any adjustments for multiplicity (35.6% [52 of 146] vs 21.4% [33 of 154]; P?=?.001). Conclusions and Relevance:Findings from this study suggest that cardiovascular RCTs published in medical journals with high impact factors demonstrate infrequent adjustments to correct for multiple comparisons in the primary end point. These parameters may be improved by more standardized reporting.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor > 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. RESULTS:We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965-2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the "Bland-Altman method") and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation.

Project description:BackgroundA debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals.MethodsWe searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups.ResultsThe 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer's V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0-47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5-13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30-244] vs. 2 [1-4] citations; P <0.001).ConclusionsWe conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.