Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of enrollment into ARDS and sepsis trials published between 2009 and 2019 in major journals

ABSTRACT:

Background

Enrollment problems are common among randomized controlled trials conducted in the ICU. However, little is known about actual trial enrollment rates and influential factors. We set out to determine the overall enrollment rate in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury (ALI), or sepsis, and which factors influenced enrollment rate.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review by searching Pubmed using predefined terms for ARDS/ALI and sepsis to identify individually RCTs published among the seven highest impact general medicine and seven highest impact critical care journals between 2009 and 2019. Cluster randomized trials were excluded. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using an electronic database management system. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of the eligible trials for the primary outcome of enrollment rate by time and site.

Results

Out of 457 articles identified, 94 trials met inclusion criteria. Trials most commonly evaluated pharmaceutical interventions (53%), were non-industry funded (78%), and required prospective informed consent (81%). The overall mean enrollment rate was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.21) participants per month per site. Enrollment in ARDS/ALI and sepsis trials were 0.48 (95% CI 0.32–0.70) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.62–1.56) respectively. The enrollment rate was significantly higher for single-center trials (4.86; 95% CI 2.49–9.51) than multicenter trials (0.52; 95% CI 0.41–0.66). Of the 36 trials that enrolled < 95% of the target sample size, 8 (22%) reported slow enrollment as the reason.

Conclusions

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, recent ARDS/ALI and sepsis clinical trials had an overall enrollment rate of less than 1 participant per site per month. Novel approaches to improve critical care trial enrollment efficiency are needed to facilitate the translation of best evidence into practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03804-1.

SUBMITTER: Krutsinger D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8591428 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS:We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ? 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS:Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION:A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Project description:BackgroundThe approximately 1100 medical journals now active in China are publishing a rapidly increasing number of research reports, including many studies identified by their authors as randomized controlled trials. It has been noticed that these reports mostly present positive results, and their quality and authenticity have consequently been called into question. We investigated the adequacy of randomization of clinical trials published in recent years in China to determine how many of them met acceptable standards for allocating participants to treatment groups.MethodsThe China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronic database was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials on 20 common diseases published from January 1994 to June 2005. From this sample, a subset of trials that appeared to have used randomization methods was selected. Twenty-one investigators trained in the relevant knowledge, communication skills and quality control issues interviewed the original authors of these trials about the participant randomization methods and related quality-control features of their trials.ResultsFrom an initial sample of 37,313 articles identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, we found 3137 apparent randomized controlled trials. Of these, 1452 were studies of conventional medicine (published in 411 journals) and 1685 were studies of traditional Chinese medicine (published in 352 journals). Interviews with the authors of 2235 of these reports revealed that only 207 studies adhered to accepted methodology for randomization and could on those grounds be deemed authentic randomized controlled trials (6.8%, 95% confidence interval 5.9-7.7). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of authenticity between randomized controlled trials of traditional interventions and those of conventional interventions. Randomized controlled trials conducted at hospitals affiliated to medical universities were more likely to be authentic than trials conducted at level 3 and level 2 hospitals (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.13, and relative risk 14.42, 95% confidence interval 9.40-22.10, respectively). The likelihood of authenticity was higher in level 3 hospitals than in level 2 hospitals (relative risk 9.32, 95% confidence interval 5.83-14.89). All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial were authentic by our criteria. Of the trials conducted at university-affiliated hospitals, 56.3% were authentic (95% confidence interval 32.0-81.0).ConclusionMost reports of randomized controlled trials published in some Chinese journals lacked an adequate description of randomization. Similarly, most so called 'randomized controlled trials' were not real randomized controlled trials owing to a lack of adequate understanding on the part of the authors of rigorous clinical trial design. All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial included in this research were authentic. Randomized controlled trials conducted by authors in high level hospitals, especially in hospitals affiliated to medical universities had a higher rate of authenticity. That so many non-randomized controlled trials were published as randomized controlled trials reflected the fact that peer review needs to be improved and a good practice guide for peer review including how to identify the authenticity of the study urgently needs to be developed.

Project description:Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

Project description:BackgroundResearch collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta-analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded.ResultsOverall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland).ConclusionsOur analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized trials in high impact medical journals. This valuable information may be used to strengthen scientific capacity for collaboration and to help to promote a global agenda for future research of excellence.

Project description:Objective To assess the effectiveness of citalopram for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, in a systematic review of all published, randomised, double-blind studies comparing it with a placebo. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PsychINFO and Embase. Study selection Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of citalopram in adults with MDD were included. Studies with medically ill or treatment resistant subjects were excluded, as were studies of relapse prevention. Remission of MDD was defined as a primary outcome, and response or change from baseline scores were defined as secondary. Data extraction Remission, response and symptom improvement scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scales were extracted. A random-effects meta-analysis was carried out on the response rates and symptom improvement scores. Included studies were examined for the presence of bias and small study effects. Results Eight studies (n=2025) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies provided data on remission, but only one of these showed a significant difference between citalopram and placebo (RR=1.59, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.31). Meta-analysis of response rates in five studies (n=1010) revealed significant superiority of citalopram (RR=1.42, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.73). Meta-analysis of change from baseline scores in five studies (n=1541) gave a standardised mean difference (Hedges' g) of -0.27 (95% CI -0.38 to to -0.16), showing a reduction in MDD symptoms to be significant for citalopram relative to placebo. There was no evidence of any significant small study effects. The overall quality of reporting was poor, with insufficient information on the methodology or outcomes. Seven studies received industry sponsorship. Conclusions Data concerning remission rates for citalopram, relative to placebo, are inconclusive. Response rates and symptom reduction scores in citalopram-treated patients with MDD are significantly better relative to placebo treatment, according to a meta-analysis of published reports. Evaluation of unpublished data is necessary to assess more definitively the effectiveness of citalopram for MDD.