Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Reporting of Complications in Rhinoplasty Randomized Controlled Trials: An Analysis Using the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the completeness of adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized control trials (RCTs) focused on rhinoplasty, using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension for Harms checklist.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional design was employed to review RCTs related to rhinoplasty published between January 1, 2005, and January 28, 2022.

SETTING

The study analyzed clinical trials on rhinoplasty retrieved from PubMed.

METHODS

We performed a comprehension search on PubMed, blind and duplicate screening, and data extraction. Adherence to the 18 recommendations of the CONSORT Extension for Harms was evaluated, with 1 point assigned for each adhered item. Percent adherence was calculated based on the 18 points, taking into account the multiple subcategories within some recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Our search returned 240 articles, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. No RCTs adhered to all 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items. Twenty-six (26/56, 46.4%) adhered to ≥50% of the items, and 30 (30/56, 53.6%) adhered to ≥33.3% of the items. Seven (7/56, 12.5%) RCTs adhered to no items. Across all RCTs, the average number of CONSORT-Harms items adhered to was 7.2 (7.2/18, 40.0%). The most adhered to item was item 10. Discussion balanced with regard to efficacy and AEs (80.4%, [70.0-90.8]).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the inadequacy of AE reporting in rhinoplasty RCTs according to CONSORT-Harms guidelines. Urgent efforts are required to bridge this reporting gap and enhance transparency in surgical research, ultimately safeguarding patient well-being.

Evaluating the completeness of the reporting of abstracts since the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts: an evaluation of randomized controlled trial in ten nursing journals

BACKGROUND

As a practice-oriented discipline, strict adherence to reporting guidelines is particularly important in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts of the nursing area. However, whether abstract reports after 2010 have complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guideline is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether the publication of CONSORT-A has improved abstract reporting in nursing and explores the factors associated with better adherence to the guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science for 200 RCTs randomly selected from ten nursing journals. We used a data extraction form based on CONSORT-A, including 16 items, to analyze the reporting adherence to the guidelines, and the reporting rate of each item and the total score for each abstract were used to indicate adherence and overall quality score (OQS, range 0-16). A comparison of the total mean score between the two periods was made, and affecting factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the studies we included, 48 abstracts were published pre-CONSORT-A whereas 152 post-CONSORT-A. The overall mean score for reporting adherence to 16 items was 7.41 ± 2.78 and 9.16 ± 2.76 for pre- and post-CONSORT-A, respectively (total score: 16). The most poorly reported items are "harms (0%)," "outcomes in method (8.5%)," "randomization (25%)," and "blinding (6.5%)." Items including the year of publication, impact factor, multiple center trial, word count, and structured abstract are significantly associated with higher adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence to abstract reporting in nursing literature has improved since the CONSORT-A era, but the overall completeness of RCT abstracts remained low. A joint effort by authors, editors, and journals is necessary to improve reporting quality of RCT abstracts.

Reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials: an updated systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To describe if there has been a change in the reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) since 2016.

DESIGN

A systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

Databases were searched from March 2016 to May 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spinal manipulation; chiropractic; osteopathy; physiotherapy; naprapathy; medical manipulation and clinical trial.

METHODS

Domains of interest (pertaining to adverse events) included: completeness and location of reporting; nomenclature and description; spinal location and practitioner delivering manipulation; methodological quality of the studies and details of the publishing journal. Frequencies and proportions of studies reporting on each of these domains were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effect of potential predictors on the likelihood of studies reporting on adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 5399 records identified by the electronic searches, of which 154 (2.9%) were included in the analysis. Of these, 94 (61.0%) reported on adverse events with only 23.4% providing an explicit description of what constituted an adverse event. Reporting of adverse events in the abstract has increased (n=29, 30.9%) while reporting in the results section has decreased (n=83, 88.3%) over the past 6 years. Spinal manipulation was delivered to 7518 participants in the included studies. No serious adverse events were reported in any of these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

While the current level of reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in RCTs has increased since our 2016 publication on the same topic, the level remains low and inconsistent with established standards. As such, it is imperative for authors, journal editors and administrators of clinical trial registries to ensure there is more balanced reporting of both benefits and harms in RCTs involving spinal manipulation.

Injectable zwitterionic cryogels for accurate and sustained chemoimmunotherapy

Chemoimmunotherapy is an effective method to treat cancer, and thus various vehicles have been constructed to co-deliver immune agents and anticancer drugs. But the immune induction process in vivo is highly susceptible to the influence of the material itself. To avoid immune reactions by the materials of delivery systems, herein, a new kind of zwitterionic cryogels (SH cryogels) with extremely low immunogenicity was prepared for chemoimmunotherapy of cancer. Their macroporous structure enabled the SH cryogels to have good compressibility and be injected through a conventional syringe. The loaded chemotherapeutic drugs and immune adjuvants were accurately, locally and long-termly released in the vicinity of tumors, enhancing the outcome of tumor therapy and minimizing the damage caused by the chemotherapeutic drugs to other organ tissues. In vivo tumor treatment experiments indicated that chemoimmunotherapy using the SH cryogel platform could inhibit the growth of breast cancer tumors to the greatest extent. Furthermore, macropores of SH cryogels supported cells to move freely in the cryogels, which could promote the dendritic cells to capture the in situ produced tumor antigens and present them to T cells. The ability to act as cradles for cell infiltration made the SH cryogels promising for applications as vaccine platforms.

New reporting items and recommendations for randomized trials impacted by COVID-19 and force majeure events: a targeted approach

Background

Appropriate analyses and reporting are essential to the reproducibility and interpretation of clinical trials. However, the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic and other force majeure events, like the war in Ukraine, have impacted the conduct of clinical trials.

Methods

The number of clinical trials potentially impacted were estimated from clinicaltrials.gov. To identify reporting items considered vital for assessing the impact of COVID-19, we reviewed 35 randomized phase III trials from three top oncology journals published between July and December 2020. For validation, we reviewed 29 phase III trials published between January and December 2021.

Results

Our results show that the number of clinical trials being potentially impacted in cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes is at least 1,484, 535, and 145, respectively. The magnitude of disruption is most significant in oncology trials. Based on the review of 35 trials, a modified checklist with ten new and four modified items covering pandemic's impact on trial conduct, protocol changes, delays, data capture, analysis and interpretation was developed to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting. Our validation shows that six out of seven applicable reporting items were reported in less than 21% of the articles.

Conclusions

Our recommendations were proposed to improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials impacted by COVID-19 and force majeure events that are broadly applicable to different areas of medical research.

Adverse Events Reporting of Clinical Trials in Exercise Oncology Research (ADVANCE): Protocol for a Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Adequate, transparent, and consistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) in exercise oncology trials is critical to assess the safety of exercise interventions for people following a cancer diagnosis. However, there is little understanding of how AEs are reported in exercise oncology trials. Thus, we propose to conduct a scoping review to summarise and evaluate current practice of reporting of AEs in published exercise oncology trials with further exploration of factors associated with inadequate reporting of AEs. The study findings will serve to inform the need for future research on standardisation of the definition, collection, and reporting of AEs for exercise oncology research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ADVANCE (ADverse eVents reporting of clinicAl trials iN exerCise oncology rEsearch) study will be conducted and reported following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guideline. Any type of clinical trial involving an exercise intervention in people living with and beyond cancer with a full-text report in English will be included. Six electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL Plus) will be searched for studies. Two independent review authors will assess eligibility of identified studies, chart data using pre-established extraction forms, and evaluate adequacy of reporting of AEs-related data against a 20-item scoring checklist derived from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension. We will summarise results using descriptive and inferential analysis methods.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval will be required to conduct the ADVANCE study owing to inclusion of only published data. The study results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and internationa  conferences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/NXEJD/ (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/NXEJD).

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140673.