Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review

Methodological rigor and quality of reporting of clinical trials published with physical activity interventions: A report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)

BACKGROUND

This study addresses the need for improved transparency and reproducibility in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) within the field of physical activity (PA) interventions. Despite efforts to promote these practices, there is limited evidence on the adherence to established reporting and methodological standards in published RCTs. The research, part of the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative) in 2020, assessed the methodological standards and reporting quality of RCTs focusing on PA interventions.

METHODS

RCTs of PA advice or exercise interventions published in 2020 were selected. Monthly searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE targeting six top-tier exercise science journals. Assessments were conducted by two independent authors, based on 44 items originally from CONSORT and TIDieR reporting guidelines. These items were divided into seven domains: transparency, completeness, participants, intervention, rigor methodology, outcomes and critical analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed using absolute and relative frequencies, and exploratory analysis was done by comparing proportions using the χ2 test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Out of 1,766 RCTs evaluated for eligibility, 53 were included. The median adherence to recommended items across the studies was 30 (18-44) items in individual assessments. Notably, items demonstrating full adherence were related to intervention description, justification, outcome measurement, effect sizes, and statistical analysis. Conversely, the least reported item pertained to mentioning unplanned modifications during trials, appearing in only 11.3% of studies. Among the 53 RCTs, 67.9% reported having a registration, and these registered studies showed higher adherence to assessed items compared to non-registered ones.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, while critical analysis aspects were more comprehensively described, aspects associated with transparency, such as protocol registrations/modifications and intervention descriptions, were reported suboptimally. The findings underscore the importance of promoting resources related to reporting quality and transparent research practices for investigators and editors in the exercise sciences discipline.

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders: Reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND

Poor reporting quality and spin in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts can lead to misinterpretation and distorted interpretation of results.

OBJECTIVES

This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among RCT abstracts on splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and explore the association between spin and potentially related factors.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed for RCTs on splint therapy for TMD. The reporting quality of each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. The authors evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the presence of spin.

RESULTS

A total of 148 abstracts were included in the reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall CONSORT score (OCS) was 5.86 (score range: 0-16). Only interventions, objectives and conclusions were adequately reported. Of the 61 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 38 abstracts (62.3%), among which 32 abstracts (52.3%) had spin in the Results section and 21 (34.4%) had spin in the Conclusions section. A significantly lower presence of spin was found in studies with exact p-value reporting (OR: 0.170; 95% CI: 0.032-0.887; p = .036) and a two-arm comparison design (OR: 11.777; 95% CI: 2.171-63.877; p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts on splint therapy for TMD is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. More awareness and joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize spin.

Assessment of Noninferiority Margins in Cardiovascular Medicine Trials

Background

Noninferiority trials are increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine, but their reporting and interpretation are challenging, particularly when an absolute risk difference is used as noninferiority margin.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the effect of using absolute rather than relative noninferiority margins in cardiovascular trials.

Methods

We reviewed noninferiority trials presented at major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2022 and published within the same period. Based on the actual versus anticipated event rates in the control group, we recalculated the absolute noninferiority margin and re-assessed the trial results. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of trials with a different interpretation after recalculation. Additionally, we analyzed the conclusion statements of these trials to determine if cautionary notes for the interpretation of study results were included.

Results

We analyzed a total of 768 trials, of which 88 had a noninferiority design and 66 used an absolute noninferiority margin. Of 48 comparisons from 45 trials qualifying for the analysis, 11 (22.9%) had divergent results after recalculation of the absolute noninferiority margin based on the observed rather than anticipated event rate. Ten trials originally claiming noninferiority, did not meet it after the margin recalculation. All of them did not include statements suggesting cautionary interpretation of the study results in the conclusion section. Compared with the other trials, these displayed a larger median difference between anticipated and recalculated noninferiority margins (44.7% [IQR: 38.6%-56.7%] vs 15.3% [IQR: -1.5% to 28.9%]; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Recalculating noninferiority margins based on actual event rates, rather than anticipated ones, led to different outcomes in approximately 1 out of 4 cardiovascular trials, with most divergent trials lacking cautionary interpretation. These findings emphasize the importance of using or supplementing the relative noninferiority margin, particularly in studies with significant deviations between observed and expected event rates. This underscores the critical need for enhanced methodological and reporting standards in noninferiority trials, especially those employing absolute margins.

The reporting quality and spin of randomized controlled trials of endometriosis pain: Methodological study based on CONSORT extension on abstracts

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts regarding patients with endometriosis pelvic pain and investigate the prevalence and characteristics of spin in these abstracts.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for RCT abstracts addressing endometriosis pelvic pain published from January 1st, 2010 to December 1st, 2023.The reporting quality of RCT abstracts was assessed using the CONSORT statement for abstracts. Additionally, spin was evaluated in the results and conclusions section of the abstracts, defined as the misleading reporting of study findings to emphasize the perceived benefits of an intervention or to confound readers from statistically non-significant results. Assessing factors affecting the reporting quality and spin existence, linear and logistic regression was used, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 47 RCT abstracts were included. Out of 16 checklist items, only three items including objective, intervention and conclusions were sufficiently reported in the most abstracts (more than 95%), and none of the abstracts presented precise data as required by the CONSORT-A guidelines. In the reporting quality of material and method section, trial design, type of randomization, the generation of random allocation sequences, the allocation concealment and blinding were most items identified that were suboptimal. The total score for the quality varied between 5 and 15 (mean: 9.59, SD: 3.03, median: 9, IQR: 5). Word count (beta = 0.015, p-value = 0.005) and publishing in open-accessed journals (beta = 2.023, p-value = 0.023) were the significant factors that affecting the reporting quality. Evaluating spin within each included paper, we found that 18 (51.43%) papers had statistically non-significant results. From these studies, 12 (66.66%) had spin in both results and conclusion sections. Furthermore, the spin intensity increased during 2010-2023 and 38.29% of abstracts had spin in both results and conclusion sections.

CONCLUSION

Overall poor adherence to CONSORT-A was observed, with spin detected in several RCTs featuring non-significant primary endpoints in obstetrics and gynecology literature.

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism for cancer patients in randomized controlled trials: a bibliographical analysis of funding and trial characteristics

Background

The majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with cancer involve commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship overcomes feasibility limitations inherent in RCTs, such as recruitment and funding, but has attracted scrutiny for its potential for bias.

Objectives

In RCTs of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer, how do trial characteristics compare between commercially sponsored RCTs and noncommercially sponsored RCTs?

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs that investigated at least 1 pharmacologic intervention for VTE prophylaxis in adult patients with cancer. Screening and data extraction were conducted by independent reviewers. Outcomes included trial characteristics, reporting of favorable outcomes, protocol-manuscript discrepancies, and appraisal of spin. Outcomes were compared using the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with possible bias.

Results

Of the 54 trials analyzed, 34 (63%) reported commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship was not associated with the reporting of favorable outcomes, presence of spin, retrospective registration, or protocol-manuscript discrepancy. Spin was most prevalent in the abstract conclusions (9 out of 17 [53.3%]) and manuscript conclusions (8 out of 17 [46.7%]).Commercially sponsored trials had a higher rate of intention-to-treat analysis. Noncommercially sponsored trials were more likely to report retrospective registration of trial protocol and the use of composite primary outcomes.

Conclusion

There were few significant differences between trial characteristics, suggesting that the evidence from commercially sponsored trials investigating VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer is unlikely to be subject to bias attributable to commercial sponsorship.

Assessment of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes: A methodological study

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of RCTs in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015 until October 28, 2022 were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a pre-determined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national level was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95%CI: 2% to 6%) and 79% (95%CI: 74% to 84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR=2.131; 95%CI: 1.092 to 4.158; P=0.03), trial designs (non-parallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR=0.395; 95%CI: 0.193 to 0.810; P=0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR=0.998; 95%CI: 0.996 to 0.999; P<0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Although the frequency of noninferiority trials is increasing, the consistency of the reporting of these trials can vary. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting quality of radiation therapy noninferiority trials.

Methods and Materials

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for randomized controlled radiation therapy trials with noninferiority hypotheses published in English between January 2000 and July 2022, and this was performed by an information scientist. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

Results

Of 423 records screened, 59 (14%) were included after full-text review. All were published after 2003 and open label. The most common primary cancer type was breast (n = 15, 25%). Altered radiation fractionation (n = 26, 45%) and radiation de-escalation (n = 11, 19%) were the most common types of interventions. The most common primary endpoints were locoregional control (n = 17, 29%) and progression-free survival (n = 14, 24%). Fifty-three (90%) reported the noninferiority margin, and only 9 (17%) provided statistical justification for the margin. The median absolute noninferiority margin was 9% (interquartile range, 5%-10%), and the median relative margin was 1.51 (interquartile range, 1.33-2.04). Sample size calculations and confidence intervals were reported in 54 studies (92%). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were reported in 27 studies (46%). In 31 trials (53%), noninferiority of the primary endpoint was reached.

Conclusions

There was variability in the reporting of key components of noninferiority trials. We encourage consideration of additional statistical reasoning such as guidelines or previous trials in the selection of the noninferiority margin, reporting both absolute and relative margins, and the avoidance of statistically vague or misleading language in the reporting of future noninferiority trials.

Consistency between trials presented at conferences, their subsequent publications and press releases

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the extent to which trials presented at major international medical conferences in 2016 consistently reported their study design, end points and results across conference abstracts, published article abstracts and press releases.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences in the USA in 2016. Conferences were identified from a list of the largest clinical research meetings aggregated by the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association and were included if their abstracts were publicly available. From these conferences, all late-breaker clinical trials were included, as well as a random selection of all other clinical trials, such that the total sample included up to 25 trial abstracts per conference.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

First, it was determined if trials were registered and reported results in an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors-approved clinical trial registry. Second, it was determined if trial results were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Finally, information on trial media coverage and press releases was collected using LexisNexis. For all published trials, the consistency of reporting of the following characteristics was examined, through comparison of the trials' conference and publication abstracts: primary efficacy endpoint definition, safety endpoint identification, sample size, follow-up period, primary end point effect size and characterisation of trial results. For all published abstracts with press releases, the characterisation of trial results across conference abstracts, press releases and publications was compared. Authors determined consistency of reporting when identical information was presented across abstracts and press releases. Primary analyses were descriptive; secondary analyses included χ2 tests and multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 240 clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences, 208 (86.7%) were registered, 95 (39.6%) reported summary results in a registry and 177 (73.8%) were published; 82 (34.2%) were covered by the media and 68 (28.3%) had press releases. Among the 177 published trials, 171 (96.6%) reported the definition of primary efficacy endpoints consistently across conference and publication abstracts, whereas 96/128 (75.0%) consistently identified safety endpoints. There were 107/172 (62.2%) trials with consistent sample sizes across conference and publication abstracts, 101/137 (73.7%) that reported their follow-up periods consistently, 92/175 (52.6%) that described their effect sizes consistently and 157/175 (89.7%) that characterised their results consistently. Among the trials that were published and had press releases, 32/32 (100%) characterised their results consistently across conference abstracts, press releases and publication abstracts. No trial characteristics were associated with reporting primary efficacy end points consistently.

CONCLUSIONS

For clinical trials presented at major medical conferences, primary efficacy endpoint definitions were consistently reported and results were consistently characterised across conference abstracts, registry entries and publication abstracts; consistency rates were lower for sample sizes, follow-up periods, and effect size estimates.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered at the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VGXZY).

Effectiveness Without Efficacy: Cautionary Tale from a Landmark Breast Cancer Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: "Old" randomized controlled trials established breast conserving therapy (BCT) and total mastectomy (TM) equivalence for treating early breast cancer, whereas recent literature report improved survival with BCT. To reconcile this, we performed a simulation study and re-analyzed B-06 trial data. Methods: We estimated the distributions for overall survival (OS), cumulative incidence functions for breast-cancer-specific death (BCSD) and other causes-specific death (OCSD) by BCT and TM. The restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference and hazard ratio between the two arms were estimated. Given the estimated distributions, we simulated cause-specific death times from each arm, evaluating the power to test treatment difference in OS, BCSD, and OCSD with different sample sizes, follow-up times, and a modified setting by simulating BCT-arm OCSD times from the distribution of patients not receiving radiation. Results: With 200 months follow-up, the average BCT-over-TM gain measured by RMST was 3.7 months for OS and 4.5 months for BCSD. Increasing the trial size to 5,000 per arm, there is a 79.2% chance to detect the OS benefit with RMST and 92.4% for BCSD. A nonproportional increase of OCSD in BCT compared to TM was observed after 144 months, and particularly after 200 months post treatments. When OCSD times of BCT were simulated using patients not receiving radiation, the estimated OS gain increased to 4.4 months, and the power increased to 92.2%. Conclusions: The late excess other-cause-death, likely due to radiation, in the BCT arm and sample size constraints limited the power to report BCT superiority. Given radiation delivered in the era of B-06 trial, BCT and TM remain largely equivalent.