Assessment of the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials related to the pharmacotherapy of COVID-19 based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jung YJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8733238 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundA considerable amount of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published on statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy, a clinical condition associated with high social and economic burden. Adherence to the CONSORT statement items is imperative to ensure transparency and reproducibility in clinical research. The aim of this study is to assess the reporting quality and the adherence to CONSORT of RCTs assessing statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy.MethodsWe conducted a critical appraisal study at Discipline of Evidence-based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). A sensitive literature search was performed to identify all relevant RCTs, with no time or language limits. Two authors independently evaluated the reporting quality of the selected RCTs using the CONSORT statement as a standard.ResultsThirteen reports of RCTs were included in this study. The adherence of the reports to CONSORT items ranged from 24% to 68%. The median score was 11 (interquartile range (IQR) 8 to 13). When analyzed separately, the methods sections of the reports had a median of three items (IQR 2 to 4) judged adherent to the methods items of CONSORT (items 3 to 12). The most underreported items were those related to trial design, title and abstract, allocation concealment, implementation of the randomization sequence, and blinding. Other important items, such as the one related to the description of the inclusion criteria, also had low adherence.ConclusionsThe overall adherence to the CONSORT checklist items was poor, especially in the items related to the methods section. RCT reports on statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy must be optimized to avoid reporting biases and to improve transparency and reproducibility.
| S-EPMC6916100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical therapy has become an increasingly important intervention owing to improvements in the multidisciplinary care for pituitary adenomas (PAs). This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PAs pharmacotherapy.MethodsRCTs evaluating the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in PAs published in English between January 1, 1974, and December 31, 2022, were searched for and collected from PubMed and MEDLINE. The 2010 Consolidated Standards for Test Reports (CONSORT) statement-based 28 items overall quality score (OQS) was used to evaluate the overall quality of each report.ResultsTwenty-seven related RCTs including 1816 patients were retrieved. The median OQS score was 12 (range, 6-19) on a scale of 0 to 28. Important items, such as background, objectives, participants, interventions, and outcomes, were sufficiently reported in 100% (27/27) of the articles. Statistical methods were adequately described in 93% (25/27) of patients. However, RCTs underreported identification as randomized trials in the title (3/27, 11%), sample size, allocation concealment, implementation, ancillary analysis method, and Diagram and Ancillary analyses (1/27, 4%). The OQS of published RCTs has significantly increased since 2010 (P = .012). The multivariate final model showed significant associations between higher OQS and publication since 2010 and enrollment of more than 100 patients.ConclusionsThe overall reporting quality of RCTs on pharmacotherapy in PAs was poor, based on the 2010 CONSORT statement. However, we noticed an improvement in the OQS over the years and identified the factors associated with a better report. Increased effort is necessary to raise awareness of these issues among writers, readers, reviewers, and editors.
| S-EPMC10939664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of modern medical research, and their reporting may not always be optimal. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is an evidence-based means to improve the quality of RCTs' reporting by providing a checklist of recommended items.The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs on the restless legs syndrome (RLS), based on a checklist arising from the CONSORT statement. Methods:Medical electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving patients with RLS. Inclusion criteria were follows: articles must have been published in English and RLS patients must have been randomized into a minimum of two treatment cohorts of different medicinal orientations. CONSORT-recommended items were marked as "reported" or "not reported," and an overall CONSORT compliance metric was calculated. Comparisons among different time periods, CONSORT-endorsing and non-endorsing, and different levels of impact factor journals were made. Results:Fifty-four eligible trials, published in 21 different scientific journals, were found. The average CONSORT compliance score was 56.6% (23.68-84.21%). CONSORT-endorsing journals had a mean CONSORT compliance of 58.47%, whereas non-endorsing journals had a mean CONSORT compliance of 50.4%. The median CONSORT compliance for articles published in low- (IF<2), medium- (IF 2-7), and high-ranked (IF>7) journals was 52.63, 56.57, and 59.21%, respectively. Only 14 of the 38 CONSORT items (36.8%) were reported in >75% of the articles. Discussion:This study shows that the reporting of RLS-related RCTs is suboptimal, regardless of the time period, the quality of the publishing journal, and the endorsing or non-endorsing of the CONSORT statement.
| S-EPMC6691606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement, updated in March 2010, includes a 25-item checklist and flow diagram. Adherence to this statement is a minimum requirement for the complete, clear, and transparent reporting of randomized trials. We translated the CONSORT 2010 Statement into Korean to promote the widespread adherence to CONSORT in South Korea and to facilitate the adoption of complete, clear, and transparent reporting. The Korean version of the CONSORT is available at http://www.e-epih.org/.
| S-EPMC4371386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs.Results53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014).ConclusionAlthough many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.
| S-EPMC8460279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed.Objectives(1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic ('ENT') journals.MethodsBased on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types.ResultsOtorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%-94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%-76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%-76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6-38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types.ConclusionThe quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts.
| S-EPMC4368673 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2844794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the best evidence in oncology research. Glioblastoma is the most frequent and deadly primary brain tumor, affecting health-related quality of life. An important end point is patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There are no data regarding how well publications of glioblastoma RCTs report PROs. A specific PRO extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was created to improve the quality of reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to the CONSORT-PRO statement in reporting RCTs addressing the treatment of patients with glioblastoma. PRO analysis methodology was explored and criteria associated with higher quality of reporting were investigated.MethodsFrom PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases, all phase 2 and 3 RCTs related to glioblastoma published between 1995 and 2018 were reviewed according to the CONSORT-PRO statements. An overall quality score on a 0 to 100 scale was defined based on these criteria and factors associated with this score were identified.ResultsForty-four RCTs were identified as relevant according to predefined criteria. The median overall quality score was 26. No difference was observed regarding reporting quality over the years. CONSORT-PRO items concerning data collection and analysis were poorly reported. Thirty-four trials (77%) used longitudinal data. The most frequent statistical method for PROs analysis was the mean change from baseline (63%). Factors associated with improved overall quality score were the presence of a secondary publication dedicated to PROs results, the statement of any targeted dimensions, and when trials reported results using multiple methods.ConclusionDespite the importance of measuring PROs in patients with glioblastoma, employment of the CONSORT-PRO statement is poor in RCTs.
| S-EPMC8049443 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8082311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Assessing the quality of evidence from vaccine clinical trials is essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and further enhance public acceptance. This study aims to summarize and critically evaluate the quality of harm reporting on randomized controlled trials for the COVID-19 vaccine and determine the factors associated with reporting quality. We systematically searched the literature using PRISMA guidelines for randomized controlled trials (RCT) on COVID-19 Vaccine until 30 December 2021. Published articles were searched from electronic databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Bibliovid. Bias analysis was performed using RoB-2 tools. The quality of reporting was assessed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension modified into 21 items. A total of 61 RCT studies (402,014 patients) were analyzed. Over half the studies demonstrated adequate reporting (59.02%), and 21 studies (34.4%) reported a low risk of bias. All studies reported death and serious adverse events (AEs), but only six studies mentioned how to handle the recurrent AEs. Reporting of AEs in subgroup analysis was also poor (25%). The RCTs on the COVID-19 vaccine were less biased with good quality on reporting harm based on the modified CONSORT harm extension. However, study quality must be considered, especially for a balance of information between effectivity and safety.
| S-EPMC8875800 | biostudies-literature