Dataset Information

Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: Inadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided.This research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcomes for patients and other decision makers. We used a three-step approach. (1) First, in each review, we identified, for each important outcome, RCTs that were excluded from the corresponding meta-analysis. (2) Then, for these RCTs, we systematically searched for registrations and protocols to distinguish between inadequate planning (an important outcome was not reported in registries or protocols), selective reporting (an important outcome was reported in registries or protocols but not in publications), and incomplete reporting (an important outcome was incompletely reported in publications). (3) Finally, we assessed, with the consensus of five experts, the feasibility and cost of measuring the important outcomes that were not planned. We considered inadequately planned or selectively or incompletely reported important outcomes as avoidable waste if the outcome could have been easily measured at no additional cost based on expert evaluation.Of the 2711 RCTs included in the main comparison of 290 reviews, 2115 (78%) were excluded from at least one meta-analysis of important outcomes. Every trial contributed to 55%, on average, of the meta-analyses of important outcomes. Of the 310 RCTs published in 2010 or later, 156 were registered. Inadequate planning affected 79% of these RCTs, whereas incomplete and selective reporting affected 41% and 15%, respectively. For 63% of RCTs, we found at least one missing important outcome for which the waste was avoidable and for 30%, the waste was avoidable for all important outcomes.Most of the RCTs included in our sample did not contribute to all the important outcomes in meta-analyses, mostly because of inadequate planning or incomplete reporting. A large part of this waste of research seemed to be avoidable.

SUBMITTER: Yordanov Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5994653 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials.

Yordanov Youri Y Dechartres Agnes A Atal Ignacio I Tran Viet-Thi VT Boutron Isabelle I Crequit Perrine P Ravaud Philippe P

BMC medicine 20180611 1

<h4>Background</h4>Inadequate planning, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contribute to the problem of waste of research. We aimed to describe such a waste and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided.<h4>Methods</h4>This research-on-research study was based on RCTs included in Cochrane reviews with a summary of findings (SoF) table. We considered the outcomes reported in the SoF tables as surrogates for important outcom ...[more]

PMID: 29886846

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the waste of research related to inadequate methods in trials included in Cochrane reviews and to examine to what extent this waste could be avoided. A secondary objective was to perform a simulation study to re-estimate this avoidable waste if all trials were adequately reported.DesignMethodological review and simulation study.Data sourcesTrials included in the meta-analysis of the primary outcome of Cochrane reviews published between April 2012 and March 2013.Data extraction and synthesisWe collected the risk of bias assessment made by the review authors for each trial. For a random sample of 200 trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias, we re-assessed risk of bias and identified all related methodological problems. For each problem, possible adjustments were proposed that were then validated by an expert panel also evaluating their feasibility (easy or not) and cost. Avoidable waste was defined as trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias for which easy adjustments with no or minor cost could change all domains to low risk. In the simulation study, after extrapolating our re-assessment of risk of bias to all trials, we considered each domain rated as unclear risk of bias as missing data and used multiple imputations to determine whether they were at high or low risk.ResultsOf 1286 trials from 205 meta-analyses, 556 (43%) had at least one domain at high risk of bias. Among the sample of 200 of these trials, 142 were confirmed as high risk; in these, we identified 25 types of methodological problem. Adjustments were possible in 136 trials (96%). Easy adjustments with no or minor cost could be applied in 71 trials (50%), resulting in 17 trials (12%) changing to low risk for all domains. So the avoidable waste represented 12% (95% CI 7% to 18%) of trials with at least one domain at high risk. After correcting for incomplete reporting, avoidable waste due to inadequate methods was estimated at 42% (95% CI 36% to 49%).ConclusionsAn important burden of wasted research is related to inadequate methods. This waste could be partly avoided by simple and inexpensive adjustments.

Project description:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to improve health care in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions can prevent the transposition of research in practice which leads waste of research. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the avoidable waste in research related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions in RCTs performed in SSA.We performed a methodological systematic review of RCTs performed in SSA and published between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2015. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library and the African Index Medicus to identify reports. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and for each risk of bias item, determined whether easy adjustments with no or minor cost could change the domain to low risk of bias. The reporting of interventions was assessed by using standardized checklists based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, and core items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Corresponding authors of reports with incomplete reporting of interventions were contacted to obtain additional information. Data were descriptively analyzed.Among 121 RCTs selected, 74 (61%) evaluated pharmacological treatments (PTs), including drugs and nutritional supplements; and 47 (39%) nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs) (40 participative interventions, 1 surgical procedure, 3 medical devices and 3 therapeutic strategies). Overall, the randomization sequence was adequately generated in 76 reports (62%) and the intervention allocation concealed in 48 (39%). The primary outcome was described as blinded in 46 reports (38%), and incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 78 (64%). Applying easy methodological adjustments with no or minor additional cost to trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias could have reduced the number of domains at high risk for 24 RCTs (19%). Interventions were completely reported for 73/121 (60%) RCTs: 51/74 (68%) of PTs and 22/47 (46%) of NPTs. Additional information was obtained from corresponding authors for 11/48 reports (22%).Inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of published SSA RCTs could be improved by easy and inexpensive methodological adjustments and adherence to reporting guidelines.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD. METHODS:RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable. RESULTS:Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time. CONCLUSIONS:Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodological design to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in humans but they are subject to bias, including study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. National and international organisations and charities give recommendations for good research practice in relation to RCTs but to date no review of these guidelines has been undertaken with respect to reporting bias.MethodsNational and international organisations and UK based charities listed on the Association for Medical Research Charities website were contacted in 2007; they were considered eligible for this review if they funded RCTs. Guidelines were obtained and assessed in relation to what was written about trial registration, protocol adherence and trial publication. It was also noted whether any monitoring against these guidelines was undertaken. This information was necessary to discover how much guidance researchers are given on the publication of results, in order to prevent study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.ResultsSeventeen organisations and 56 charities were eligible of 140 surveyed for this review, although there was no response from 12. Trial registration, protocol adherence, trial publication and monitoring against the guidelines were often explicitly discussed or implicitly referred too. However, only eleven of these organisations or charities mentioned the publication of negative as well as positive outcomes and just three of the organisations specifically stated that the statistical analysis plan should be strictly adhered to and all changes should be reported.ConclusionOur review indicates that there is a need to provide more detailed guidance for those conducting and reporting clinical trials to help prevent the selective reporting of results. Statements found in the guidelines generally refer to publication bias rather than outcome reporting bias. Current guidelines need to be updated and include the statement that all primary and secondary outcomes prespecified in the protocol should be fully reported and should not be selected for inclusion in the final report based on their results.

Project description:ImportanceThe results of numerous large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have changed clinical practice in gastric cancer (GC). However, research waste (ie, unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations) is still a major challenge for evidence-based medicine.ObjectivesTo determine the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years and the presence of research waste and to explore potential targets for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study of GC RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for phase 3 or 4 RCTs registered from January 2000 to December 2019 using the keyword gastric cancer. Independent investigators undertook assessments and resolved discrepancies via consensus. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were descriptions of the characteristics of GC RCTs and the proportion of studies with signs of research waste. Research waste was defined as unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations. Publication status was determined by searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The adequacy of reporting was evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline checklist. Avoidable design limitations were determined based on existing bias or lack of cited systematic literature reviews. In the analyses of research waste, 125 RCTs that ended after June 2016 without publication were excluded.ResultsA total of 262 GC RCTs were included. The number of RCTs increased from 25 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 97 trials in 2015 to 2019, with a greater increase among RCTs of targeted therapy or immunotherapy, which increased from 0 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 36 trials in 2015 to 2019. The proportion of RCTs that were multicenter was higher in non-Asian regions than in Asian regions (50 of 71 RCTs [70.4%] vs 96 of 191 RCTs [50.3%]; P = .004). The analysis of research waste included 137 RCTs, of which 81 (59.1%) were published. Among published RCTs, 65 (80.2%) were judged to be adequately reported and 63 (77.8%) had avoidable design defects. Additionally, 119 RCTs (86.9%) had 1 or more features of research waste. Study settings that included blinding (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; P = .03), a greater number of participants (ie, ≥200 participants; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.51; P = .01), and external funding support (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.60; P = .004) were associated with lower odds of research waste. Additionally, 35 RCTs (49.3%) were referenced in guidelines, and 18 RCTs (22.2%) had their prospective data reused.Conclusions and relevanceTo our knowledge, this study is the first to describe the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years, and it found a research waste burden, which may provide evidence for the development of rational RCTs and reduction of waste in the future.

Project description:ObjectivesTransparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice. While existing studies have shown that deficiencies are common, detailed empirical and field-specific data are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to examine current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedics.SettingExploratory meta-research study on reporting quality and transparent research practices in orthopaedics and sports medicine clinical trials.ParticipantsThe sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopaedics journals over 9 months.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTwo independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigour, like randomisation, blinding, and sample size calculations, as well as the study sample, and data analysis.ResultsThe sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigour criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (95% CI 25% to 39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; 95% CI 1% to 7%). Only 18% (95% CI 12% to 24%) included information on randomisation type, method and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants' sex/gender (95%; 95% CI 92% to 98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; 95% CI 72% to 84%). Only 20% (95% CI 14% to 26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories.ConclusionsThese results will aid the sports medicine and orthopaedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomisation and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. As these practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting.

Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines. METHODS:The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities. DISCUSSION:InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.

Dataset Information

Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials.

Publications

Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets