Dataset Information

Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: To systematically assess adherence of randomised trials in surgery to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT). Surgical trials are considered more difficult to design and execute than pharmacological trials. Furthermore, the original CONSORT statement does not address some aspects that are vital to the transparent reporting of surgical trials. The CONSORT-NPT extension was designed to address these issues but adherence in medical and surgical journals has not been assessed.Cross-sectional study.We identified eight general medical and eight surgical journals, indexed in PubMed and published in 2011, with the highest impact factors in their respective categories.Adherence to CONSORT statement and CONSORT-NPT extension items.We identified 54 surgical trials (22 published in medical journals and 32 in surgical journals). There were eight items for which there was less than 30% overall compliance (seven were specific to the CONSORT-NPT extension). These seven items are related to: a full description of the care providers, centres and blinding status in the abstract (n=7/54, 13%), eligibility criteria for centres performing the interventions (n=13/54, 24%), how adherence of care providers with the protocol was assessed or enhanced (n=7/54, 13%), how clustering by care providers or centres was addressed as it relates to sample size (n=3/54, 6%), how care providers were allocated to each group (n=9/54, 17%), how clustering by care providers or centres was addressed as it relates to statistical methods (n=2/54, 4%), a description of care providers (case volume, qualification, expertise, etc) and centres (volume) in each group (n=0/54, 0%).Adherence of surgical trials to CONSORT-NPT extension items is much poorer than to the standard CONSORT statement. Adherence also appears to be superior in general medical journals compared with surgical journals. Raising awareness and conducting qualitative research to identify areas for specific intervention will be important going forward.

SUBMITTER: Nagendran M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3884742 | biostudies-other | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study.

Nagendran Myura M Harding Daniel D Teo Wendy W Camm Christian C Maruthappu Mahiben M McCulloch Peter P Hopewell Sally S

BMJ open 20131218 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically assess adherence of randomised trials in surgery to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT). Surgical trials are considered more difficult to design and execute than pharmacological trials. Furthermore, the original CONSORT statement does not address some aspects that are vital to the transparent reporting of surgical trials. The CONSORT-NPT extension was designed to address these issues but adhe ...[more]

PMID: 24353256

Similar Datasets

Project description:Object: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is the second most common cause of stroke but still there is little consolidated knowledge about the optimal treatment strategies (e.g., the benefit of surgical evacuation). We evaluated the current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on primary ICH (01.2013-03.2017) according to their fulfillment of the CONSORT statement's criteria (published in 2010) -as a marker of transparency and quality of study planning and realization. Methods: A Pubmed and a Cochrane database (including clinicaltrials.gov) search was carried out (01.2014-3.2017, respectively 01.2013-12.2013). Abstracts were screened for inclusion. Eligible full text manuscripts were assessed for the implementation of the CONSORT criteria. Citation frequencies and impact factors of the journals were related to ratio of CONSORT criteria fulfillment. Further, the risk of bias according to the Risk of bias tool 2 (RoB 2) was assessed. Results: Overall 3097 abstracts were screened for inclusion; 39 studies were suitable for final analysis. A mean fulfillment ratio of 51% (±28%) was found. A high correlation between impact factor and adherence to CONSORT criteria was shown (r = 0.7664; p < 0.0001). Citation frequency per year was related to ratio of CONSORT item fulfillment (r = 0.6747; p < 0.0001) and to the impact factor of the publishing journal (r = 0.7310; p < 0.0001). Of note, the items 10 (randomization: implementation) and 21 (generalizability) showed particularly high rates of non-fulfillment (87 and 85%). The majority of studies (95%) complied with item 2b (specific objectives or hypotheses), but strikingly objectives were mostly described vaguely. Other essential criteria such as sample size determination, definition of outcome parameters, and participant flow were only fulfilled weakly (51, 54, and 39%). Conclusions: Over 20 years after its inception there is still weak adherence to the CONSORT statement. As a consequence, conclusions are hampered by inadequate planning and/or reporting. Particularly with respect to pathologies as ICH lacking clear, evidence-based guidelines adherence to the CONSORT statement might improve research quality in order to define valuable treatment strategies.

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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details.DesignAnalysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions.Data sources and study selectionAll reports of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions published in 2009 in six leading general medical journals; 133 trial reports, with 137 interventions, met the inclusion criteria.Data collectionUsing an eight item checklist, two raters assessed the primary full trial report, plus any reference materials, appendices, or websites. Questions about missing details were emailed to corresponding authors, and relevant items were then reassessed.ResultsOf 137 interventions, only 53 (39%) were adequately described; this was increased to 81 (59%) by using 63 responses from 88 contacted authors. The most frequently missing item was the "intervention materials" (47% complete), but it also improved the most after author response (92% complete). Whereas some authors (27/70) provided materials or further information, other authors (21/70) could not; their reasons included copyright or intellectual property concerns, not having the materials or intervention details, or being unaware of their importance. Although 46 (34%) trial interventions had further information or materials readily available on a website, many were not mentioned in the report, were not freely accessible, or the URL was no longer functioning.ConclusionsMissing essential information about interventions is a frequent, yet remediable, contributor to the worldwide waste in research funding. If trial reports do not have a sufficient description of interventions, other researchers cannot build on the findings, and clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement useful interventions. Improvement will require action by funders, researchers, and publishers, aided by long term repositories of materials linked to publications.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic pain affects a significant proportion of the population and presents a major challenge to clinicians and pain specialists. Despite the availability of pharmacologic treatment options such as opioids, many patients continue to experience persistent pain. Cannabinoids present an alternative option with some data on efficacy; however, to date, a systematic review of adverse events (AEs) assessment and reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving cannabinoids has not been performed. As a result, it is unclear whether a clear profile of cannabinoid-associated AEs has been accurately detailed in the literature. As cannabinoids are likely to become readily available for patients in the near future, it is important to study how well AEs have been reported in trials so that the safety profile of cannabinoids can be better understood. OBJECTIVE:With a potentially enormous shift toward cannabinoid use for managing chronic pain and spasticity, this study aims to reveal the adequacy of AE reporting and cannabinoid-specific AEs in this setting. Spasticity is a major contributor to chronic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), with a comorbidity of 75%. Many cannabinoid studies have been performed in MS-related painful spasticity with relevant pain outcomes, and these studies will be included in this review for comprehensiveness. The primary outcome will be the quality of AE assessment and reporting by adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Secondary outcomes will include the type of AE, method of AE reporting, severity of AE, frequency of AEs, patient withdrawals, and reasons for withdrawals. METHODS:We will perform a systematic review by searching for primary reports of double-blind, randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo and any active comparator treatments for chronic pain, with a primary outcome directly related to pain (eg, pain intensity, pain relief, and pain-related interference). We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO. RevMan software will be used for meta-analysis. RESULTS:The protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018100401). The project was funded in 2018 and screening has been completed. Data extraction is under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in January or February 2019. CONCLUSIONS:This review will better elucidate the safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity through identifying gaps in the literature for AE reporting. Like in any new therapy, it is essential that accurate information surrounding the safety and efficacy of cannabinoids be clearly outlined and identified to balance the benefit and harm described for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018100401; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=100401. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/11637.

Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor's note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.

Dataset Information

Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study.

Publications

Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets