Undisclosed changes in outcomes in randomized controlled trials: an observational study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ewart R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2775624 | biostudies-other | 2009 Nov-Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Undisclosed changes in outcomes in randomized controlled trials: an observational study.
Ewart Robert R Lausen Harald H Millian Norman N
Annals of family medicine 20091101 6
<h4>Purpose</h4>We wanted to investigate the frequency of undisclosed changes in the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between trial registration and publication.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a retrospective, nonrandom, cross-sectional study design, we investigated RCTs published in consecutive issues of 5 major medical journals during a 6-month period and their associated trials registry entries. Articles were excluded if they did not have an available trial registry entry, did not have a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHomelessness has been associated with multiple detrimental health outcomes across observational studies. However, relatively few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on people who experience homelessness (PEH). Thus, this umbrella review ranked the credibility of evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of observational studies investigating the associations between homelessness and any health outcome as well as RCTs targeting health needs in this population.MethodsSeveral databases were systematically searched from inception through April 28, 2021. Any SR and/or MA reporting quantitative data and providing a control group were eligible for inclusion. The credibility of the evidence derived from observational studies was appraised by considering the significance level of the association and the largest study, the degree of heterogeneity, the presence of small-study effects as well as excess significance bias. The credibility of evidence was then ranked in five classes. For SRs and/or MAs of RCTs, we considered the level of significance and whether the prediction interval crossed the null. The AMSTAR-2 and AMSTAR-plus instruments were adopted to further assess the methodological quality of SRs and/or MAs. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed to further appraise the methodological quality of prospective cohort studies only; a sensitivity analysis limited to higher quality studies was conducted.ResultsOut of 1549 references, 8 MAs and 2 SRs were included. Among those considering observational studies, 23 unique associations were appraised. Twelve of them were statistically significant at the p≤0.005 level. Included cases had worst health-related outcomes than controls, but only two associations reached a priori-defined criteria for convincing (class I) evidence namely hospitalization due to any cause among PEH diagnosed with HIV infection, and the occurrence of falls within the past year among PEH. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument, the methodological quality of all included SRs and/or MAs was "critically low." Interventional studies were scant.ConclusionWhile homelessness has been repeatedly associated with detrimental health outcomes, only two associations met the criteria for convincing evidence. Furthermore, few RCTs were appraised by SRs and/or MAs. Our umbrella review also highlights the need to standardize definitions of homelessness to be incorporated by forthcoming studies to improve the external validity of the findings in this vulnerable population.
| S-EPMC9273695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterise the percentage of available outcome data being presented in reports of randomised clinical trials with continuous outcome measures, thereby determining the potential for incomplete reporting bias.DesignDescriptive cross sectional study.Data sourcesA random sample of 200 randomised trials from issues of 20 medical journals in a variety of specialties during 2007-09.Main outcome measuresFor each paper's best reported primary outcome, we calculated the fraction of data reported using explicit scoring rules. For example, a two arm trial with 100 patients per limb that reported 2 sample sizes, 2 means, and 2 standard deviations reported 6/200 data elements (1.5%), but if that paper included a scatterplot with 200 points it would score 200/200 (100%). We also assessed compliance with 2001 CONSORT items about the reporting of results.ResultsThe median percentage of data reported for the best reported continuous outcome was 9% (interquartile range 3-26%) but only 3.5% (3-7%) when we adjusted studies to 100 patients per arm to control for varying study size; 17% of articles showed 100% of the data. Tables were the predominant means of presenting the most data (59% of articles), but papers that used figures reported a higher proportion of data. There was substantial heterogeneity among journals with respect to our primary outcome and CONSORT compliance.LimitationsWe studied continuous outcomes of randomised trials in higher impact journals. Results may not apply to categorical outcomes, other study designs, or other journals.ConclusionsTrialists present only a small fraction of available data. This paucity of data may increase the potential for incomplete reporting bias, a failure to present all relevant information about a study's findings.
| S-EPMC3668620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Limited data about the long-term prognosis and response to therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with World Health Organization functional class I/II symptoms are available. PubMed and Embase were searched for publications of observational registries and randomized, controlled trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients published between January 2001 and January 2018. Eligible registries enrolled pulmonary arterial hypertension patients ≥18 years, N > 30, and reported survival by functional class. Randomized, controlled trial inclusion criteria were pulmonary arterial hypertension patients ≥18 years, ≥6 months of treatment, and morbidity, mortality, or time to worsening as end points reported by functional class. The primary outcomes were survival for registries and clinical event rates for randomized, controlled trials. Separate random effects models were calculated for registries and randomized, controlled trials. Four randomized, controlled trials (n = 2482) and 10 registries (n = 6580) were included. Registries enrolled 9%-47% functional class I/II patients (the vast majority being functional class II) with various pulmonary arterial hypertension etiologies. Survival rates for functional class I/II patients at one, two, and three years were 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 91%-95%), 86% (95% CI: 82%-89%), and 78% (95% CI: 73%-83%), respectively. The hazard ratio for the treatment effect in randomized, controlled trials overall was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.51-0.74) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.44-0.82) for functional class I/II patients and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49-0.78) for functional class III/IV. The calculated risk of death of 22% within three years for functional class I/II patients underlines the need for careful assessment and optimal treatment of patients with functional class I/II disease. The randomized, controlled trial analysis demonstrates that current medical therapies have a beneficial treatment effect in this population.
| S-EPMC7691927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the increasing prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases, patient education is becoming important to strengthen disease prevention and control. We aimed to systematically determine the extent to which registered, ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated an educational intervention focus on patient-important outcomes (i.e., outcomes measuring patient health status and quality of life).MethodsOn May 6, 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data and determined whether the outcomes assessed were 1) patient-important outcomes such as clinical events, functional status, pain, or quality of life or 2) surrogate outcomes, such as biological outcome, treatment adherence, or patient knowledge.Principal findingsWe selected 268 of the 642 potentially eligible studies and assessed a random sample of 150. Patient-important outcomes represented 54% (178 of 333) of all primary outcomes and 46% (286 of 623) of all secondary outcomes. Overall, 69% of trials (104 of 150) used at least one patient-important outcome as a primary outcome and 66% (99 of 150) as a secondary outcome. Finally, for 31% of trials (46 of 150), primary outcomes were only surrogate outcomes. The results varied by medical area. In neuropsychiatric disorders, patient important outcomes represented 84% (51 of 61) of primary outcomes, as compared with 54% (32 of 59) in malignant neoplasm and 18% (4 of 22) in diabetes mellitus trials. In addition, only 35% assessed the long-term impact of interventions (i.e., >6 months).ConclusionsThere is a need to improve the relevance of outcomes and to assess the long term impact of educational interventions in RCTs.
| S-EPMC3420885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Existing evidence of the association between statin use and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk has been inconsistent.To maximize statistical power to synthesize prospective evidence on this relationship.PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrial.gov were systematically searched up to December 11, 2016. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate summary estimates.Our meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 63,157 subjects showed no significant association between statin use and NMSC risk (RR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.85-1.39). However, meta-analysis of four observational studies including 1,528,215 participants showed significantly increased risk of NMSC among statin users compared to non-users (RR = 1.11, 95%CI = 1.02-1.22). Furthermore, ever using lipophilic statins (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.04-1.24) or lower-potency statins (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.03-1.26), as well as usage of any statin longer than one year (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.09-1.18) were significantly associated with increased NMSC risk based on observational studies.Evidence from observational studies supported an association between statin use and increased NMSC risk. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to modest number of included studies, possible between-study heterogeneity and inherent limitations of observational studies.
| S-EPMC5650431 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are situated at the top of hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, where its number and quality are important in the assessment of quality of evidence in a medical field. In this study, we aim to assess the status of RCTs in Ophthalmology. Methods: On 15 th of May 2019, we performed a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials published in the field of ophthalmology using relevant filters and search terms. We categorized the results into specific topics in ophthalmology according to Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) database classification system. We used Altmetric explorer to identify journals and articles with the highest number of RCTs and highest citations. Results: We found a total of 540,427 publications in the field of ophthalmology, of which only 11,634 (2.15%) of them were RCTs. 'Retinal diseases' was the topic with the highest number of RCTs, followed by 'glaucoma' and 'conjunctival diseases'. The trial with highest number of citations was on retinal diseases. Only around 18% of all ophthalmology RCTs are published in the top 10 ophthalmology journals, with a maximum percentage of RCTs was (5.53%) published in Ophthalmology. Conclusion: RCTs in ophthalmology primarily concern the retina, glaucoma, and a few other sub-topics, with little focus on sclera, orbit, and the eyelids. Most of the high impact RCTs are published in non-ophthalmology journals.
| S-EPMC7156022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multiple randomized controlled trials of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) prior to cardiac surgery have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. The aim of this updated meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of RIPC on outcomes following cardiac surgery.Searches of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were performed for 1970 to December 13, 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPC with a sham procedure prior to cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass were assessed. All-cause mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), and myocardial infarction were the primary outcomes of interest. We identified 21 trials that randomized 5262 patients to RIPC or a sham procedure prior to undergoing cardiac surgery. The majority of patients were men (72.6%) and the mean or median age ranged from 42.3 to 76.3 years. Of the 9 trials that evaluated mortality, 188 deaths occurred out of a total of 4210 randomized patients, with 96 deaths occurring in 2098 patients (4.6%) randomized to RIPC and 92 deaths occurring in 2112 patients (4.4%) randomized to a sham control procedure, demonstrating no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.987; 95% CI, 0.653-1.492, P=0.95). Twelve studies evaluated AKI in 4209 randomized patients. In these studies, AKI was observed in 516 of 2091 patients (24.7%) undergoing RIPC and in 577 of 2118 patients (27.2%) randomized to a sham procedure. RIPC did not result in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.839; 95% CI, 0.703-1.001 [P=0.052]). In 6 studies consisting of 3799 randomized participants, myocardial infarction occurred in 237 of 1891 patients (12.5%) randomized to RIPC and in 282 of 1908 patients (14.8%) randomized to a sham procedure, resulting in no significant reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (RR, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.615-1.064 [P=0.13]). A subgroup analysis was performed a priori based on previous studies suggesting that propofol may mitigate the protective benefits of RIPC. Three studies randomized patients undergoing cardiac surgery to RIPC or sham procedure in the absence of propofol anesthesia. Most of these patients were men (60.3%) and the mean or median age ranged from 57.0 to 70.6 years. In this propofol-free subgroup of 434 randomized patients, 71 of 217 patients (32.7%) who underwent RIPC developed AKI compared with 103 of 217 patients (47.5%) treated with a sham procedure. In this cohort, RIPC resulted in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.700; 95% CI, 0.527-0.930 [P=0.014]). In studies of patients who received propofol anesthesia, 445 of 1874 (23.7%) patients randomized to RIPC developed AKI compared with 474 of 1901 (24.9%) who underwent a sham procedure. The RR for AKI was 0.928 (95% CI, 0.781-1.102; P=0.39) for RIPC versus sham. There was no significant interaction between the two subgroups (P=0.098).RIPC does not reduce morbidity or mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. In the subgroup of studies in which propofol was not used, a reduction in AKI was seen, suggesting that propofol may interact with the protective effects of RIPC. Future studies should evaluate RIPC in the absence of propofol anesthesia.
| S-EPMC5523764 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveMultiple outcomes are commonly analyzed in randomized trials. Interpretation of the results of trials with many outcomes is not always straightforward. We characterize the prevalence and factors associated with multiple outcomes in reports of clinical trials of depression, methods used to account for these outcomes, and concordance between published analyses and original protocol specifications.MethodsA PubMed search for randomized controlled depression trials that included multiple outcomes published between January 2007 and October 2008 in 6 medical journals. Original study protocols were reviewed where available. Parallel data collection by 2 abstractors was used to determine trial registration information, the number of outcomes, and analytical method.ResultsOf the 55 included trials, nearly half of the papers reported more than 1 primary outcome, while almost all (90.9%, n = 50) reported more than 2 combined primary or secondary outcomes. Relatively few of the studies (5.8%, n = 3) adjusted for multiple outcomes. While most studies had published protocols in clinical trial registries (76.4%, n = 42), many did not specify outcomes in the protocol (n = 11) and a number had discrepancies with the published report.ConclusionsMultiple outcomes are prevalent in randomized controlled depression trials and appropriate statistical analyses to account for these methods are rarely used. Not all studies filed protocols, and there were discrepancies between these protocols and published reports. These issues complicate interpretability of trial results, and in some cases may lead to spurious conclusions. Promulgation of guidelines to improve analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes is warranted.
| S-EPMC3071542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous studies have shown that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of clinical adverse events, but we found otherwise from recent evidences. This study aims to synthesize the existing evidence evaluating safety of intraoperative hypothermia. METHODS:Articles, reviews, ongoing trials and grey literatures were retrieved from PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Clinical Trails and CNKI (a Chinese national database) till February 2nd, 2019. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies compared incidences of all sorts of intra- and post-operative consequences between hypothermia and normothermia were included. Researches comparing different warming systems were excluded. We also examined risks of hypothermia using lowered standards (35.5?°C and 35?°C) from a Chinese trial (ChiCTR-IPR-17011099). RESULTS:A total of 9 RCT studies and 11 observational studies were included. RCT-synthesized results showed that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of bleeding (MD?=?131.90, 95%CI: 117.42, 146.38), surgical site infection (RD?=?0.14, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.21) and shivering (RD?=?0.32, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.58) but with no significant differences in duration of surgery, hospital stay or mortality. Observational study-synthesized evidences showed that intraoperative hypothermia did not result in higher risks in any of these adverse events. Results didn't change even if the standard of hypothermia was lowered by 0.5-1.0?°C. CONCLUSIONS:The study indicates that the synthesized risks resulted by intra-operative hypothermia might be overestimated and the eligibility of 36?°C to define hypothermia is not sensitive enough. Given body-temperature protection has not been popularized in China, it is still critical to normalize the hypothermia prevention at this stage.
| S-EPMC7429823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsWe searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects.ResultsThirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions.ConclusionsOverall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.
| S-EPMC8647453 | biostudies-literature