Rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics and gynecology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bruno AM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8599633 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics and gynecology.
Bruno Ann M AM Olmsted Molly W MW Martin Valerie V Einerson Brett D BD Metz Torri D TD Allshouse Amanda A AA Scott James R JR Blue Nathan R NR
American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM 20210726 6
<h4>Background</h4>Randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence but fewer than half are reproducible. A rigorous methodology improves trial quality, but reproducibility may be limited by a lack of transparency in reporting. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines define reporting standards, and pretrial registration requires a predefined methodology and predefined outcomes.<h4>Objective</h4>We evaluated obstetrics and gynecology trials published in ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Verifying that a statistically significant result is scientifically meaningful is not only good scientific practice, it is a natural way to control the Type I error rate. Here we introduce a novel extension of the p-value-a second-generation p-value (pδ)-that formally accounts for scientific relevance and leverages this natural Type I Error control. The approach relies on a pre-specified interval null hypothesis that represents the collection of effect sizes that are scientifically uninteresting or are practically null. The second-generation p-value is the proportion of data-supported hypotheses that are also null hypotheses. As such, second-generation p-values indicate when the data are compatible with null hypotheses (pδ = 1), or with alternative hypotheses (pδ = 0), or when the data are inconclusive (0 < pδ < 1). Moreover, second-generation p-values provide a proper scientific adjustment for multiple comparisons and reduce false discovery rates. This is an advance for environments rich in data, where traditional p-value adjustments are needlessly punitive. Second-generation p-values promote transparency, rigor and reproducibility of scientific results by a priori specifying which candidate hypotheses are practically meaningful and by providing a more reliable statistical summary of when the data are compatible with alternative or null hypotheses.
| S-EPMC5863943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) in gynecology and obstetrics education in China.MethodsEnglish and Chinese databases were systematically searched for eligible studies that compared the effects of PBL and traditional teaching methods measuring theoretical knowledge, student satisfaction, clinical operations, and clinical practice scores in gynecology and obstetrics education in China. The authors restricted included studies to randomized controlled trials and performed a meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.ResultsA total of 38 randomized controlled trials with 3005 participants were included. Compared with traditional teaching group, the PBL group significantly increased theoretical knowledge scores (SMD: 3.17, 95% CI: 2.28, 4.07), student satisfaction (risk ratio: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.43), clinical operations (SMD: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.37) and clinical practice (SMD: 2.17, 95% CI: 3.63, 2.71).ConclusionThe current research shows that PBL in gynecology and obstetrics education in China is more effective than the traditional teaching in enhancing theoretical knowledge, student satisfaction, clinical operations, and clinical practice scores. However, more delicate-designed studies on this topic are needed in the future to validate these results.
| S-EPMC7939176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess whether a journal club model could improve comprehension and written and spoken medical English in a population of Chinese medical professionals.Setting and participantsThe study population consisted of 52 medical professionals who were residents or postgraduate master or PhD students in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, China.InterventionAfter a three-part baseline examination to assess medical English comprehension, participants were randomised to either (1) an intensive journal club treatment arm or (2) a self-study group. At the conclusion of the 8-week intervention participants (n=52) were re-tested with new questions.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the change in score on a multiple choice examination. Secondary outcomes included change in scores on written and oral examinations which were modelled on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL).ResultsBoth groups had improved scores on the multiple choice examination without a statistically significant difference between them (90% power). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in mean improvement in scores for both written (95% CI 1.1 to 5.0; p=0.003) and spoken English (95% CI 0.06 to 3.7; p=0.04) favouring the journal club intervention.ConclusionsInteracting with colleagues and an English-speaking facilitator in a journal club improved both written and spoken medical English in Chinese medical professionals. Journal clubs may be suitable for use as a self-sustainable teaching model to improve fluency in medical English in foreign medical professionals.Trial registration numberNCT01844609.
| S-EPMC4735128 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11344353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2017 American College of Neuropychopharmacology (ACNP) conference hosted a Study Group on 4 December 2017, Establishing best practice guidelines to improve the rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of the maternal immune activation (MIA) animal model of neurodevelopmental abnormalities. The goals of this session were to (a) evaluate the current literature and establish a consensus on best practices to be implemented in MIA studies, (b) identify remaining research gaps warranting additional data collection and lend to the development of evidence-based best practice design, and (c) inform the MIA research community of these findings. During this session, there was a detailed discussion on the importance of validating immunogen doses and standardizing the general design (e.g., species, immunogenic compound used, housing) of our MIA models both within and across laboratories. The consensus of the study group was that data does not currently exist to support specific evidence-based model selection or methodological recommendations due to lack of consistency in reporting, and that this issue extends to other inflammatory models of neurodevelopmental abnormalities. This launched a call to establish a reporting checklist focusing on validation, implementation, and transparency modeled on the ARRIVE Guidelines and CONSORT (scientific reporting guidelines for animal and clinical research, respectively). Here we provide a summary of the discussions in addition to a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines needed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of this valuable translational model, which can be adapted and applied to other animal models as well.
| S-EPMC6300528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications.ResultsWe identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items.ConclusionsTransparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.
| S-EPMC9510360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) research, gender disparities permeate through leadership, funding, promotion, mentorship, publishing, compensation, and publicity. Few studies have investigated OBGYN clinical trial leadership as it relates to investigator gender. Thus, we undertook an investigation of principal investigator (PI) gender and clinical trial success.ObjectiveTo characterize United States (US) OBGYN clinical trials by PI gender and analyze the association between PI gender and features of trial success.Study designThis is a cross-sectional study of all US-based obstetric and gynecologic clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2020). We examined associations between PI gender (ie, led by women, men, or both) and four primary outcomes that capture clinical trial success: early discontinuation (ie, absence of early discontinuation is a feature of success), reporting of complete trials to ClinicalTrials.gov, publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and clinical trial participant diversity (reporting of racial and ethnic diversity data and representation of diverse cohorts). Multivariable analyses controlled for subspecialty, multiple PI status, source of funding, primary purpose, phase, number of arms, enrollment, year of trial registration, blinding, oversight by a Data Safety Monitoring Committee, and number of study sites. Sensitivity analysis accounted for individual PI who led multiple clinical trials. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis models were applied. We conducted multiple imputation for missing covariable data. There were no missing exposure or outcome data in the final cohort.ResultsWe reviewed 12,635 clinical trials focused on OBGYN. Of the 4342 trials with at least one site in the US, PI names were available for 3087 trials (71.1%). The majority of OBGYN trials were women-led (women 1696, 54.9%; men 1272, 41.2%, coled 119, 3.9%). A greater proportion of obstetrics trials (617, 60.0%) were women-led than gynecology trials (1079, 52.4%). Family planning had the greatest proportion of women-led trials (145, 74.7%), whereas reproductive endocrinology and infertility had the lowest (50, 30.9%). A greater proportion of industry-funded trials were led by men (123, 64.7%). In adjusted analysis, women-led trials had lower odds of early discontinuation (men-led reference; women-led adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 0.77). Women-led trials reported results less frequently (men-led reference; women-led aOR 0.52, CI 0.40-0.62) but no significant difference was seen in publication (men-led reference; women-led aOR 1.02, CI 0.57, 1.81). Women-led trials had greater odds of reporting race and ethnicity participant data (men-led reference; aOR 1.87, CI 1.27-2.47) but there was no difference in cohort diversity by PI gender.ConclusionWomen investigators lead approximately half of OBGYN clinical trials in the US. Women-led trials discontinue less frequently, publish at similar rates, and include data on diversity more frequently than men-led trials. Women are as successful as men in conducting clinical trials and, in certain domains, more successful. Our findings place the impetus on the OBGYN professional ecosystem to support women's academic careers.
| S-EPMC11750538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the United States (US), many obstetrics & gynecology (OB-GYN) trainees feel unprepared to care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, but interest in this topic is rising. Residency program websites are one way that directors can advertise whether this training is offered within their program. We aimed to describe the extent to which LGBTQI content is currently featured on OB-GYN residency websites across the country.MethodsWe identified all OB-GYN residency programs in the United States using a publicly available database. We systematically searched for select LGBTQI keywords on program websites. We collected data on mentions of LGBTQI didactics and rotations. We also searched whether LGTBQI keywords were included in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the characteristics of programs that do and do not include this content. We used STATA SE Version 16.0 for all analyses and set the level of significance at 5%.ResultsWe included 287/295 US OB-GYN residency programs in our analysis (97.3%) and excluded 8 that did not have websites. We identified any LGBTQI content on 50 program websites (17.4%), and specific mention of didactics or rotations on 8 websites (2.8%). On multivariable analysis, programs in the West were more likely to include any LGBTQI content compared to programs in the South (OR 2.81, 95%CI 1.04-7.63), as were programs with 1 or 2 fellowships (OR 3.41, 95%CI 1.43-8.14) or 3 or more fellowships (OR 4.85, 95%CI 2.03-11.57) compared to those without fellowships. Programs in departments led by female chairs were also more likely to include LBTQI content (OR 3.18, 95%CI 1.55-6.51).ConclusionsAcademic programs, West Coast programs, and those with departments led by female chairs are more likely to mention LGBTQI keywords on their websites. Given the increasing interest in LGBTQI education for OB-GYN trainees, program directors should consider providing training opportunities and including this content on their websites.
| S-EPMC10642032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe evolving landscape of application processes for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants poses many challenges for applicants and advisors. The lack of data coordination among national groups creates crucial gaps in information for stakeholder groups.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify the current state of the advising milieu for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants and their career advisors, the annual Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics survey focused on US clerkship directors' experiences advising students through these processes.Study designA 23-item anonymous survey was developed that asked respondents about demographics and outcomes for the students that they advised through the 2021 application process and their experiences with dual applicants and students not matching. The survey was sent electronically to all obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors with active Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics memberships in April 2021.ResultsOf 224 total clerkship directors, 143 (63.8%) responded to the survey, Of the 143 respondents, almost all (136 [95.1%]) served as career advisors, and 50 (35.0%) were aware of students dual applying. Furthermore, obstetrics and gynecology was rarely the backup to a more competitive specialty. For the 2021 application cycle, 79 of 143 respondents (55.2%) reported having students not successfully match into obstetrics and gynecology, with "academic concerns" followed by "poor communication skills" as the primary reasons cited for students not matching.ConclusionThis snapshot of clerkship directors' experiences advising students in the residency application process reveals notably high rates of dual applicants and students not matching into obstetrics and gynecology. This work fills key gaps in our knowledge of current processes and highlights the importance of career advising at multiple points during the application process.
| S-EPMC10585629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to identify the trends and patterns of robotic surgery research in obstetrics and gynecology since its implementation. We used data from Clarivate's Web of Science platform to identify all articles published on robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology. A total of 838 publications were included in the analysis. Of these, 485 (57.9%) were from North America and 281 (26.0%) from Europe. 788 (94.0%) articles originated in high-income countries and none from low-income countries. The number of publications per year reached a peak of 69 articles in 2014. The subject of 344 (41.1%) of articles was gynecologic oncology, followed by benign gynecology (n = 176, 21.0%) and urogynecology (n = 156, 18.6%). Articles discussing gynecologic oncology had lower representation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (32.0% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.001) compared with high income countries. After 2015 there has been a higher representation of publications from Asia (19.7% vs. 7.7%) and from LMIC (8.4% vs. 2.6%), compared to the preceding years. In a multivariable regression analysis, journal's impact factor [aOR 95% CI 1.30 (1.16-1.41)], gynecologic oncology subject [aOR 95% CI 1.73 (1.06-2.81)] and randomized controlled trials [aOR 95% CI 3.67 (1.47-9.16)] were associated with higher number of citations per year. In conclusion, robotic surgery research in obstetrics & gynecology is dominated by research in gynecologic oncology and reached a peak nearly a decade ago. The disparity in the quantity and quality of robotic research between high income countries and LMIC raises concerns regarding the access of the latter to high quality healthcare resources such as robotic surgery.
| S-EPMC10492767 | biostudies-literature