Randomized clinical trials in HEPATOLOGY: predictors of quality

Surgical endoscopy education research: how are we doing?

BACKGROUND

Surgical endoscopy (SE), the official journal of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, is an important source of new evidence pertaining to surgical education in the field. However, qualitative deficiencies in medical education research have prompted medical education leaders to advocate for increased methodological rigor. The purpose of this study is to review the quality of education-focused research published through SE.

METHODS

A PubMed search examining all SE articles categorized as education-related research from 2010 to 2019 was conducted; studies not meeting inclusion criteria were excluded. Remaining publications were independently reviewed, classified, and scored by 7 raters using the medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). Intraclass correlation was calculated and data were examined with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 227 studies met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in number of publications by year (average 25.88 [SD 5.6]); 60% were conducted outside of the United States, and 47% (n = 106) were funded. The average MERSQI was 12.5 (SD 2). Most studies used two-group non-random (42%, n = 96) or post/cross-sectional designs (29%, n = 65). Thirty-six (16%) were randomized controlled trials. Multi-institutional studies comprised 24% (n = 54). Of the manuscripts, 96% (n = 217) reported at least one measure of validity evidence and 28% (n = 67) described three levels of validity evidence. Studies primarily reported changes in skills or knowledge (45%, n = 103) or satisfaction or general facts (44%, n = 99), while patient-related outcomes encompassed 3% (n = 6) of studies. ICC between raters was 0.93 (CI 0.90-0.93, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on publications to date, this journal's peer review process appears to facilitate the dissemination of education-related studies of moderate to good quality. However, there were uncovered deficits, ranging from validity evidence to study designs and level of outcomes. This journal's breadth of viewership offers a potential venue to advance education-related research.

Evidence-based therapeutic dilemma in the management of uncomplicated amebic liver abscess: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of metronidazole alone, percutaneous aspiration (PA), and percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in the treatment of uncomplicated amebic liver abscess (ALA) is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the available evidences with regard to treatment modalities in such patients.

METHODS

The database was searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until May 2019. All studies were assessed for risk of bias. The relevant data were pooled in a random or fixed-effect model to calculate the mean difference (MD) or relative risks.

RESULTS

After the detailed screening, 570 patients from 10 RCTs comparing metronidazole alone with metronidazole + PA were included. Most studies had uncertain risk of biases. Days to resolution of abdominal pain (MD - 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.77, - 0.42, I2 = 89%) and tenderness (MD - 1.76, 95% CI - 2.93, - 0.58, I2 = 72%) were significantly shorter in the metronidazole + PA group. There was no significant difference in relation to the resolution of fever, abscess size, and hospital stay. The beneficial effects of PA were seen with medium-to-large (> 5 cm) ALA and not with small (< 5 cm) ALA. Addition of PCD to metronidazole therapy was better than metronidazole alone in one low-quality RCT. Two RCTs found PCD to be better than PA for large ALA.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous aspiration as compared with metronidazole alone results in the early resolution of pain and tenderness in patients with medium-to-large ALA. Percutaneous catheter drainage is better for larger ALA. However, discrepancies in RCTs create therapeutic dilemmas necessitating further efforts to generate more reliable data.

Relationship Between Declarations of Conflict of Interests and Reporting Positive Outcomes in Iranian Dental Journals

Conflict of interests is a situation when someone is in need of other people's trust on one the hand and has personal or general interests on the other hand, resulting in conflict with the given responsibility. In this research work, an attempt was made to find the relation between declarations of conflict of interests and reporting positive outcomes in the dental journals in Iran (2000-2016). In this analytical/cross-sectional study, first Health and Biomedical Information was searched and all the Persian and English dental journals published in Iran were collected. Then, all the papers published in the journals from December 2000 to December 2016 were collected and categorized in terms of the year of publication, author or authors' affiliations, Persian and English journal, type of the substance or the drug used (including the manufacturing company), declarations of conflict of interests and the positive or negative conclusion of the report. Data were analyzed with the Fisher's exact test and Chi squared test, using the program SPSS 18. In numerical analysis, the significance was set at P < 0.05. Seventeen dental journals in Persian and English were analyzed: 10 in English and 7 in Persian. Reviewing these studies showed that of 1021 articles in Persian, in 128 cases there was no mention of a declaration of conflict of interests and in 11 cases, the COI had been stated. In addition, from 1220 articles in English, in 825 cases there was no mention of declarations of conflict of interests and in 45 cases, the declarations of COI had been mentioned. There was no significant relation between the COI and 'no' COI and the reporting of positive outcomes in papers in Iranian dental journals in terms of the journal type, year of publication and the journals' guarantee form (P = 0.25, P = 0.41 and P = 0.09). A total of 83% of studies with declarations of COI had one positive outcome, with a significant relationship in this field; however, in 73% of studies with no COI, there was one positive outcome, too. In general, the society expects that doctors would not consider any incentives except the health of the patients in the efforts made by them. The severity of the consequences of COI is of higher value when the patients' health is endangered due to it. In addition, COI might change the attitude and approach of other doctors and peers.

Questioning a publication bias between industry-funded and non-industry-funded randomized controlled trials on biological and small molecule therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

There has been a significant increase in financial support of clinical research by the pharmaceutical industry.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive systematic literature review to determine whether there is publication bias for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) studies between industry-funded and non-industry funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and between RCTs with positive results (PRs) and those with negative results (NRs) of FDAapproved biological and small molecule drug therapy for RA. Each RCT was classified as having either a PR or a NR, and as having received commercial funding or not.

RESULTS

Most (297/349, 85.18%) of the RCTs were commercially funded. There was no significant difference in PRs or association with publication between commercially and noncommercially funded RCTs. Sample size was significantly larger in commercially funded RCTs and in those with PRs, and it was the only significant parameter that predicted publication in higher impact factor journals in the field of RA.

CONCLUSION

There is no significant association between commercial funding and the publication of positive results or the publication of an RCT in higher impact factor journals.

Are Neonatal Trials Better Conducted and Reported over the Last 6 Decades? An Analysis on Their Risk-of-Bias Status in Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

The introduction of Neonatology as a subspecialty in 1960 has stimulated an enormous amount of neonatal research. A large proportion of neonatal randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) have been included in the Cochrane reviews, within which methodological quality or risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment is an integral feature.

OBJECTIVES

We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s.

METHODS

We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible.

RESULTS

We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite steady improvement in the overall quality of neonatal RCTs over the last 6 decades, blinding remained unsatisfactory in the majority of the trials.

Analysis of the biliostatic potential of two sealants in a standardized porcine model of liver resection

BACKGROUND

Improved resection techniques has decreased mortality rate following liver resections(LRx). Sealants are known as effective adjuncts for haemostasis after LRx. We compared biliostatic effectiveness of two sealants in a standardized porcine model of LRx.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We accomplished left hemihepatectomy on 27 pigs. The animals were randomized in control group(n = 9) with no sealant and treatment groups (each n = 9), in which resection surfaces were covered with TachoSil^® and TissuFleece^®/Tissucol Duo^®. After 5 days the volume of ascites(ml), bilioma and/or bile leakages and degree of intra-abdominal adhesions were analysed.

RESULTS

Proportion of ascites was lower in TissuFleece/Tissucol Duo^® group. The ascites volume was lower in TachoSil^® group. In sealant groups, increased adhesion specially in the TachoSil^® group was seen. A reduction of the "bilioma rate" was seen in sealant groups, which was significantly lower in TissuFleece^®/Tissucol Duo^® group.

CONCLUSION

In a standardized condition sealants have a good biliostatic effect but with heterogeneous potentials. This property in combination with the cost-benefit analysis should be the focus of future prospective studies.

The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013-2015 - a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis

Background

Trials financed by for-profit organizations have been associated with favorable outcomes of new treatments, although the effect size of funding source impact on outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size for a favorable outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), stratified by funding source, that have been published in general medical journals.

Methods

Parallel-group RCTs published in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA between 2013 and 2015 were identified. RCTs with binary primary endpoints were included. The primary outcome was the OR of patients’ having a favorable outcome in the intervention group compared with the control group. The OR of a favorable outcome in each trial was calculated by the number of positive events that occurred in the intervention and control groups. A meta-analytic technique with random effects model was used to calculate summary OR. Data were stratified by funding source as for-profit, mixed, and nonprofit. Prespecified sensitivity, subgroup, and metaregression analyses were performed.

Results

Five hundred nine trials were included. The OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs was 1.92 (95% CI 1.72–2.14), which was higher than mixed source-funded RCTs (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25–1.43) and nonprofit-funded RCTs (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.26–1.39). The OR for a favorable outcome was higher for both clinical and surrogate endpoints in for-profit-funded trials than in RCTs with other funding sources. Excluding drug trials lowered the OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs. The OR for a favorable surrogate outcome in drug trials was higher in for-profit-funded trials than in nonprofit-funded trials.

Conclusions

For-profit-funded RCTs have a higher OR for a favorable outcome than nonprofit- and mixed source-funded RCTs. This difference is associated mainly with the use of surrogate endpoints in for-profit-financed drug trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1872-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Systematic characterization of gastrointestinal clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines are commonly based on inadequate evidence, suggesting deficiencies in the present portfolio of clinical research.

AIMS

To investigate characteristics of clinical trials examining gastrointestinal (GI) diseases registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of 13,647 GI trials and 111,535 non-GI trials initiated between January 1997 and September 2013 was performed. Entries were sorted by operational status, purpose, interventions, trial design, and epochs to identify trends and interactions in trial properties.

RESULTS

The global production of GI trials has remained static in recent years and a majority of research efforts are focused on a few diseases. While GI trials are generally produced by highly populated US states and countries, they are also seldom larger than 500 patients. The likelihood of using data monitoring committees, randomization, and double blinding in GI trials has increased over time, though a substantial fraction of GI trials still do not employ rigorous trial designs. While levels of GI trials correlate with disease burden, the explained variance of GI trials by disease burden worldwide is poor.

CONCLUSION

GI trials are chiefly concentrated in few diseases and highly populated regions, exhibit heterogeneous trends and methodologies, and are sensitive to disease burdens, though more so within North America than worldwide.

Minimum reporting standards for clinical research on groin pain in athletes

Groin pain in athletes is a priority area for sports physiotherapy and sports medicine research. Heterogeneous studies with low methodological quality dominate research related to groin pain in athletes. Low-quality studies undermine the external validity of research findings and limit the ability to generalise findings to the target patient population. Minimum reporting standards for research on groin pain in athletes are overdue. We propose a set of minimum reporting standards based on best available evidence to be utilised in future research on groin pain in athletes. Minimum reporting standards are provided in relation to: (1) study methodology, (2) study participants and injury history, (3) clinical examination, (4) clinical assessment and (5) radiology. Adherence to these minimum reporting standards will strengthen the quality and transparency of research conducted on groin pain in athletes. This will allow an easier comparison of outcomes across studies in the future.

WITHDRAWN: S-adenosyl-L-methionine for alcoholic liver diseases

The review is withdrawn as it was abandoned and has not been updated since its last edition in 2008. A new team of authors resumed the work on the review, and so far, a major update to the protocol is published. The review is expected to be finalised towards the end of 2016.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Developing evidence-based dentistry skills: how to interpret randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews

Decision-making based on reliable evidence is more likely to lead to effective and efficient treatments. Evidence-based dentistry was developed, similarly to evidence-based medicine, to help clinicians apply current and valid research findings into their own clinical practice. Interpreting and appraising the literature is fundamental and involves the development of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) skills. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to be evidence of the highest level in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Furthermore, the assessment of the report of a RCT, as well as a SR, can lead to an estimation of how the study was designed and conducted.

Aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus infection affects around 3% of the world population or approximately 160 million people. A variable proportion (5% to 40%) of the infected people develop clinical symptoms. Hence, hepatitis C virus is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality with hepatic fibrosis, end-stage liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma as the dominant clinical sequelae. Combination therapy with pegylated (peg) interferon-alpha and ribavirin achieves sustained virological response (that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitivity testing six months after the end of treatment) in approximately 40% to 80% of treated patients, depending on viral genotype. Recently, a new class of drugs have emerged for hepatitis C infection, the direct acting antivirals, which in combination with standard therapy or alone can lead to sustained virological response in 80% or more of treated patients. Aminoadamantanes, mostly amantadine, are antiviral drugs used for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. We have previously systematically reviewed amantadine versus placebo or no intervention and found no significant effects of the amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C. Overall, we did not observe a significant effect of amantadine on sustained virological response. In this review, we systematically review aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013. Furthermore, full text searches were conducted until December 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in participants with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess the risk of systematic errors ('bias'). We used trial sequential analysis to assess risk of random errors ('play of chance').

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials with 581 participants with chronic hepatitis C were included. All trials had high risk of bias. The included trials compared amantadine versus other antiviral drugs: ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. Standard antiviral therapy (interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, or peg interferon alpha) was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in five trials, depending on when the trial was conducted. Four trials compared amantadine versus ribavirin. There were no deaths or liver-related morbidity in the two intervention groups (0/216 (0%) versus 0/211 (0%); 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). The lower estimated risk for (serious) adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation with amantadine was imprecise (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; based on 10/216 (5%) versus 18/211 (9%) participants in 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). There were more participants with failure of sustained virological response in the amantadine group than in the ribavirin group (206/216 (96%) versus 176/211 (84%); RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22, 4 trials; low quality of the evidence). Amantadine versus ribavirin more often failed to achieve end-of follow-up biochemical response (41/46 (89%) versus 31/46 (67%); RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63; 2 trials; very low quality of the evidence). One trial compared amantadine versus mycophenolate mofetil. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except that amantadine was inferior to mycophenolate mofetil regarding the outcome failure to achieve end-of treatment virological response (low quality of evidence). One trial each compared amantadine versus interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma. Both comparisons showed no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (very low quality of the evidence). The observed effects could be due to real effects, systematic errors (bias), or random errors (play of chance). This possible influence on the observed effect by play of chance is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses on failure of histological improvement and quality of life due to lack of valid data in all trial comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use.

Aminoadamantanes for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Around 3% of the world's population (approximately 160 million people) are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The proportion of infected people who develop clinical symptoms varies between 5% and 40%. Combination therapy with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin eradicates the virus from the blood six months after treatment (sustained virological response) in approximately 40% to 80% of infected patients, depending on the viral genotype. New antiviral agents, such as boceprevir and telaprevir, in combination with standard therapy, can increase sustained virological response in genotype 1 infected patients to at least 70%. There is therefore an unmet need for drugs that can achieve a higher proportion of sustained virological response. Aminoadamantanes are antiviral drugs used for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials, as well as trial sequential analyses.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 11 of 12 (1995 to December 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013 and checked the reference lists of identified publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed for risks of systematic errors ('bias') using the 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used trial sequential analysis to assess the risk of random errors ('play of chance'). We assessed quality using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised clinical trials with 6193 patients with chronic hepatitis C. All trials had high risk of bias. All included trials compared amantadine versus placebo or no intervention. Standard antiviral therapy was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in 40 trials. The standard antiviral therapy, which was administered to both intervention groups, was interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, and peg interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, depending on the time when the trial was conducted.When we meta-analysed all trials together, the overall results demonstrated no significant effects of amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, on our all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome (5/2353 (0.2%) versus 6/2264 (0.3%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; I² = 0%; 32 trials; very low quality). There was also no significant effect on adverse events (288/2869 (10%) versus 293/2777 (11%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I² = 0%; 35 trials; moderate quality). We used both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (1821/2861 (64%) versus 1737/2721 (64%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.02; I² = 35%; 35 trials; moderate quality). However, in the subgroup using interferon plus ribavirin, amantadine decreased the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (422/666 (63%) versus 447/628 (71%); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; I² = 41%; 11 trials; low quality). Similar results were found for failure to achieve an end of treatment virological response. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, significantly decreased the number of patients without normalisation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) serum levels at the end of treatment (671/1141 (59%) versus 732/1100 (67%); RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; I² = 47%; 19 trials; low quality). Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the end of follow-up biochemical response (1133/1896 (60%) versus 1151/1848 (62%); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; I² = 49%; 21 trials; low quality).The observed beneficial effects could be true effects but could also be due to both systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). The latter is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm or refute our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses for failure of histological improvement or quality of life due to a lack of valid data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review does not demonstrate any significant effects of amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C; however, the median trial duration was 12 months, with a median follow-up of six months, which is not long enough to assess the composite outcome sufficiently. Overall, we did not see an effect of amantadine on failure to achieve a sustained virological response. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of amantadine plus interferon-alpha and ribavirin seems to increase the number of patients achieving a sustained virological response. This finding may be caused by both systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance), but it could also be real. Based on the results of the overall evidence, it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine for patients with chronic hepatitis C will show strong benefits. Therefore, it is probably advisable to wait for the results of trials assessing other direct-acting antiviral drugs. In the absence of convincing evidence of benefit, the use of amantadine is justified in the context of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of combination therapy. We found a lack of evidence on other aminoadamantanes than amantadine.

Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Critical commentaries suggest that wound care randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often poorly reported with many methodological flaws. Furthermore, interventions in chronic wounds, rather than being drugs, are often medical devices for which there are no requirements for RCTs to bring products to market. RCTs in wounds trials therefore potentially represent a form of marketing. This study presents a methodological overview of chronic wound trials published between 2004 and 2011 and investigates the influence of industry funding on methodological quality.

METHODS

A systematic search for RCTs for the treatment of chronic wounds published in the English language between 2004 and 2011 (inclusive) in the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials was carried out.Data were extracted on aspects of trial design, conduct and quality including sample size, duration of follow-up, specification of a primary outcome, use of surrogate outcomes, and risks of bias. In addition, the prevalence of industry funding was assessed and its influence on the above aspects of trial design, conduct and quality was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 167 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. We found chronic wound trials often have short durations of follow-up (median 12 weeks), small sample sizes (median 63), fail to define a primary outcome in 41% of cases, and those that do define a primary outcome, use surrogate measures of healing in 40% of cases. Only 40% of trials used appropriate methods of randomisation, 25% concealed allocation and 34% blinded outcome assessors. Of the included trials, 41% were wholly or partially funded by industry, 33% declared non-commercial funding and 26% did not report a funding source. Industry funding was not statistically significantly associated with any measure of methodological quality, though this analysis was probably underpowered.

CONCLUSIONS

This overview confirms concerns raised about the methodological quality of RCTs in wound care and illustrates that greater efforts must be made to follow international standards for conducting and reporting RCTs. There is currently minimal evidence of an influence of industry funding on methodological quality although analyses had limited power and funding source was not reported for a quarter of studies.

Systematic review of randomized trials of treatment of male sexual partners for improved bacteria vaginosis outcomes in women

BACKGROUND

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) affects 10% to 30% of women and recurs in 15% to 30% within 3 months after treatment. BV is not considered an sexually transmitted infection, and treatment of the male sexual partner is not recommended. This recommendation is based on the results of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of male partner treatment for reducing BV recurrence, which did not find a uniformly beneficial effect. These results are incongruous with epidemiologic and microbiologic data suggesting a sexually transmissible component of BV. In light of this disconnect, the 6 RCTs of male treatment were reviewed to assess validity.

METHODS

Trials are summarized according to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. Absolute differences and risk ratios with binomially obtained 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Post hoc power analyses determined the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis for observed relative effect sizes and for the smallest relative effect size detectable with ≥ 80% power.

RESULTS

Each of the 6 RCTs had significant flaws: randomization methods were either overtly deficient or insufficiently reported; 5 RCTs used suboptimal treatment regimens in women; adherence to treatment in women was not reported in any trial, and adherence in men was reported in only 2 trials; all 6 trials had limited power. None assessed whether antibiotic treatment affected the penile microbiota.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the RCT is the gold standard for assessing efficacy, biased results can mislead decision making. By current standards, it is unlikely that the results of any of these trials would be considered conclusive. Specific recommendations are made to examine whether BV-associated bacteria may be sexually transferred.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update using more stringent methodology and also investigating sponsorship of device studies.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 4, 2010) and Web of Science (August 2011). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors identified potentially relevant papers, and a decision about final inclusion was made by all authors. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight papers were included. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14 to 1.35), harms results RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.54 to 2.27) and conclusions RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.44) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Ten papers reported on sponsorship and effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data. The results were heterogeneous; five papers found larger effect sizes in industry sponsored studies compared with non-industry sponsored studies and five papers did not find a difference in effect size. Only two papers (including 120 device studies) reported separate data for devices and we did not find a difference between drug and device studies on the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.23). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment and follow-up. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.65), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials of 3 vaccines: a review of adherence to the CONSORT checklist

BACKGROUND

Clear reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vaccines is important for understanding results and assessing their validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides guidance to help authors reporting RCTs. The objective was to assess the completeness of reporting of RCTs of vaccines based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.

METHODS

We collected data about items required by the CONSORT checklist or specific to trials of vaccines. We used publications of RCTs identified in 3 systematic reviews of pneumococcal polysaccharide, pneumococcal conjugate and rotavirus vaccines. We included the first journal publication that reported clinical, carriage or immunological data for each trial and summarized results descriptively.

RESULTS

We included 70 publications from 19 journals. Of these, 14 publications (20%) stated in the title that the trial was randomized and 26 publications (37%) nominated at least 1 primary outcome. The method for generating the random allocation sequence was fully reported in 24 publications (34%), the method of allocation concealment in 9 publications (13%) and 30 publications (43%) included a flow diagram. Trial registration numbers were reported in all articles published in 2010 to 2011. Actual age at vaccination was reported in 20% of trials of childhood schedules. Eleven of 19 journals endorsed the CONSORT statement.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of RCTs of vaccines is incomplete, with important methodological details missing from most reports. Journals could play a leading role in implementing changes. Improved reporting would make publications of vaccine trials easier to find, the findings easier to interpret and aid the incorporation of findings into policy.

Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of industry funding with the characteristics, outcome, and reported quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

The Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify original RA drug therapy RCTs published in 2002-2003 and 2006-2007. Two reviewers independently assessed each RCT for the funding source, characteristics, outcome (positive [statistically significant result favoring experimental drug for the primary outcome] or not positive), and reporting of methodologic measures whose inadequate performance may have biased the assessment of treatment effect. RCTs that were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and completed during the study years were assessed for publication bias.

RESULTS

Of the 103 eligible RCTs identified, 58 (56.3%) were funded by industry, 19 (18.4%) were funded by nonprofit sources, 6 (5.8%) had mixed funding, and funding for 20 (19.4%) was not specified. Industry-funded RCTs had significantly more study centers and subjects, while nonprofit agency-funded RCTs had longer duration and were more likely to study different treatment strategies. Outcome could be assessed for 86 (83.5%) of the 103 RCTs studied. The funding source was not associated with a higher likelihood of positive outcomes favoring the sponsored experimental drug (75.5% of industry-funded RCTs had a positive outcome, compared with 68.8% of non-industry-funded RCTs, 40% of RCTs with mixed funding, and 81.2% of RCTs for which funding was not specified). Industry-funded RCTs showed a trend toward a higher likelihood of nonpublication (P=0.093). Industry-funded RCTs were more frequently associated with double-blinding, an adequate description of participant flow, and performance of an intent-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSION

Industry funding was not associated with a higher likelihood of positive outcomes of published RCTs of drug therapy for RA, and industry-funded RCTs performed significantly better than non-industry-funded RCTs in terms of reporting the use of some key methodologic quality measures.

Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the reported methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reflects the actual methodological quality and to evaluate the association of effect size (ES) and sample size with methodological quality.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review. This is a retrospective analysis of all consecutive phase III RCTs published by eight National Cancer Institute Cooperative Groups up to 2006. Data were extracted from protocols (actual quality) and publications (reported quality) for each study.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of methodological quality was poor and did not reflect the actual high methodological quality of RCTs. The results showed no association between sample size and actual methodological quality of a trial. Poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding exaggerated the ES by 6% (ratio of hazard ratio [RHR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88, 0.99) and 24% (RHR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.43), respectively. However, actual quality assessment showed no association between ES and methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

The largest study to date shows that poor quality of reporting does not reflect the actual high methodological quality. Assessment of the impact of quality on the ES based on reported quality can produce misleading results.

[Efficacy of acupuncture in treatment of cancer pain: a systematic review]

BACKGROUND

Although acupuncture is a well-established treatment for cancer pain and its effects have been widely reported in recent two decades, there is still controversy over whether its efficacy is better than placebo.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture therapy on cancer pain.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), EMBASE, PubMed, ScienceDirect database, Current Controlled Trials, Chongqin VIP database and CNKI database were searched, and the search date ended in June 2008. The authors also hand-searched six Chinese Journals related to the question.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture therapy with placebo, Western drugs, Chinese herbal medicines, or comparing acupuncture therapy plus drug treatment with drug treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two separate evaluators assessed the quality of the included reports and extracted the useful information. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Meta-analysis of the included trials was done with RevMan 5.0, and qualitative analysis was employed when meta-analysis was not appropriate.

RESULTS

Seven published RCTs with a total of 634 patients met the inclusion criteria, and the quality of one of the included trials was high. Due to flaws in design and reporting, meta-analysis was precluded, and only qualitative analysis was done on the majority of the reports. The high-quality trial showed that auricular acupuncture therapy was significantly superior to placebo in pain alleviation. The other six low-quality trials with non-placebo showed that acupuncture therapy had some positive effects.

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture is effective for pain relief. However, the poor quality of the majority of the trials reduces the reliability of the conclusion. More high-quality RCTs are needed to verify the effects.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Methodological reporting of randomized controlled trials in major hepato-gastroenterology journals in 2008 and 1998: a comparative study

Background

It was still unclear whether the methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in major hepato-gastroenterology journals improved after the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was revised in 2001.

Methods

RCTs in five major hepato-gastroenterology journals published in 1998 or 2008 were retrieved from MEDLINE using a high sensitivity search method and their reporting quality of methodological details were evaluated based on the CONSORT Statement and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of interventions. Changes of the methodological reporting quality between 2008 and 1998 were calculated by risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 107 RCTs published in 2008 and 99 RCTs published in 1998 were found. Compared to those in 1998, the proportion of RCTs that reported sequence generation (RR, 5.70; 95%CI 3.11-10.42), allocation concealment (RR, 4.08; 95%CI 2.25-7.39), sample size calculation (RR, 3.83; 95%CI 2.10-6.98), incomplete outecome data addressed (RR, 1.81; 95%CI, 1.03-3.17), intention-to-treat analyses (RR, 3.04; 95%CI 1.72-5.39) increased in 2008. Blinding and intent-to-treat analysis were reported better in multi-center trials than in single-center trials. The reporting of allocation concealment and blinding were better in industry-sponsored trials than in public-funded trials. Compared with historical studies, the methodological reporting quality improved with time.

Conclusion

Although the reporting of several important methodological aspects improved in 2008 compared with those published in 1998, which may indicate the researchers had increased awareness of and compliance with the revised CONSORT statement, some items were still reported badly. There is much room for future improvement.

Hepato-biliary clinical trials and their inclusion in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group register and reviews

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) is one of the 52 collaborative review groups within The Cochrane Collaboration. The activities of the CHBG focus on collecting hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT), and including them in systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the trials. In this overview, we present the growth of The CHBG Controlled Trials Register, as well as the systematic reviews that have been produced since March 1996.

RESULTS

The CHBG register includes almost 11,000 RCT and 700 CCT publications. The earliest RCT in the register were published in 1955, and the earliest CCT in 1945. From 1945 to 1980, there were less than 100 publications each year. From 1981 to 1997, their number increased from over 100 to 600 a year. After 1997, the number of publications seems to have been decreasing. The CHBG has published 199 protocols for systematic reviews and 107 systematic reviews through to August 2009 in which 21% of the RCT and CCT were included. The CHBG reviews have been cited approximately 1200 times.

CONCLUSIONS

A large amount of work has been carried out since 1996. However, there is still much to do, as the CHBG register contains a great number of RCT and CCT on topics that have not yet been systematically reviewed.

A comparison of the scientific quality of publicly and privately funded randomized controlled drug trials

BACKGROUND

There is disagreement but few objective data on the relative quality of publicly or privately funded research. Cochrane reviews of randomized trials provide a good comparison opportunity because there is widespread agreement on how trial quality should be assessed and the Cochrane reviewers routinely do this.

AIMS

To compare the quality of publicly or privately funded randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

A total of 105 trials included in two Cochrane reviews were studied. Their quality assessments were abstracted from the relevant review and information about their funding source was collected from the original trial publications.

MAIN RESULTS

Funding information was obtained for 87 trials. Of these, trials funded by pharmaceutical companies were larger (median sample size 126 vs. 45, P<0.001), more likely to have avoided ascertainment bias 11/14 vs. 15/41 (P=0.05). Non-significant trends in avoiding entry bias 19/19 vs. 35/37 and performance bias 13/22 vs. 14/48 also favoured the commercial trials. Commercial trials also had higher recorded attrition rates (median 6% vs. 1%, P=0.007), but this difference was entirely caused by more non-commercial trials reporting a zero attrition rate.

DISCUSSION

The apparently lower attrition rate in the non-commercial trials should be interpreted with caution. Zero attrition in clinical trials with follow-up of many months is somewhat implausible.

MAIN CONCLUSION

Commercially funded randomized trials tend to be of higher methodological quality than government-funded ones.

Assessment of the Methodologic Quality of Medical and Surgical Clinical Trials in Patients with Arthroplasty

Objective.

To assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of medical and surgical therapy in patients with arthroplasty.

Methods.

We conducted a Medline database search for all arthroplasty RCT from 1997 and 2006. The quality of the methods of all eligible RCT was assessed by a trained abstractor. We used a checklist of trial quality characteristics, and the overall trial quality was assessed by 3 scales: Jadad (range 0–5), Delphi list (range 0–9), and numeric rating scale (NRS; range 1–10), based on User’s Guides to the Medical Literature.

Results.

A total of 196 articles were included in the analysis; most included hip (n = 81) or knee (n = 80) or both hip/knee arthroplasty (n = 19); 66 (34%) assessed pharmacological treatments, 117 (60%) nonpharmacological treatments, and 13 (7%) both. Mean (SEM) overall quality scores of arthroplasty RCT were low: Jadad score 2.36 (1.4), Delphi list 5.33 (1.6), and NRS score 4.30 (2.6). Multivariable analyses revealed that nonpharmacological intervention RCT had lower odds (odds ratio 0.28–0.39; p = 0.008–0.033) and those with no funding had lower odds (OR 0.28–0.50; p = 0.014–0.119) of being in the highest quartiles of the 3 overall quality scores. In contrast, multicenter RCT had 1.8–4.7 times higher odds of being in highest tertiles of quality scores (p = 0.017–0.185).

Conclusion.

Methodological deficiencies in reporting of hip/knee arthroplasty RCT offer an opportunity for improvement. Type of intervention, number of trial centers, and presence of funding were independently associated with overall trial quality. In future, multicenter RCT (rather than single-center) and modeling protocols of single-center RCT similar in rigor to multicenter RCT may improve the quality of arthroplasty RCT.

Trial sample size, but not trial quality, is associated with positive study outcome

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the reported trial quality or trial characteristics are associated with the trial outcome.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of arthroplasty from 1997 and 2006. Trials were classified based on whether the main trial outcome was reported to be positive (n = 90) or negative (n = 94). Multivariable logistic regression analyses studied the association of reporting of trial-quality measures (blinding, placebo use, allocation procedure, overall quality) and trial characteristics (intervention type, number of patients/centers, funding) with positive trial outcome.

RESULTS

RCTs that used placebo or blinded care providers, used pharmacological interventions, had higher Jadad quality scores or sample size of more than 100 patients were significantly more likely to report positive result in univariate analyses. Multivariable regression did not identify methodological quality of RCTs, but rather found that sample size was associated with trial outcome. Studies with more than 100 patients were 2.2 times more likely to report a positive result than smaller studies (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of association of reported trial quality with positive outcome in multivariable analyses suggests that previously observed association of reported study quality with study outcome in univariate analyses may be mediated by other study characteristics, such as study sample size.

The role of conflict of interest in reporting of scientific information

We have come to appreciate that scientific misconduct is often not intuitively obvious to those who perpetrate it. Therefore, this commentary has been written to review what we know about the role of conflict of interest (COI) in the reporting of scientific information and to challenge those of us in educator roles to do a better job in mentoring our trainees, junior faculty, and associates on what is right and wrong; what is ethical and unethical. The review addresses the following questions: (1) Why has the public trust in the clinical research industry been eroded? (2) How often is the ethical concept of equipoise violated in industry-sponsored randomized controlled clinical trials? (3) How often are negative trials underreported and favorable trials selectively or redundantly over-reported in industry-sponsored randomized controlled clinical trials? (4) What is being done to restore the public trust? While there are multiple strategies to mitigate COI in the reporting of scientific information, we have come to appreciate that the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is not enough. It is our hope that this article and its contents can serve as a stimulus for the development and incorporation of an educational series in all training programs on what is ethical and unethical in the conducting and reporting of scientific studies.

Methodological reporting of randomized clinical trials in major gastroenterology and hepatology journals in 2006

To determine the current quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, we evaluated the methodological reporting of RCTs in six major gastroenterology and hepatology journals. The methodological quality, including generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double-blinding, and sample size calculation; number of patients; disease area; and funding source was also retrieved from each trial, and the relevant trials were identified by searching MEDLINE in 2006 using a highly sensitive search strategy. The status of reporting the methodological quality of RCTs was descriptively reported. One hundred five trials were included in the final analysis; of these, 81% (85/105) reported adequate generation of the allocation sequence, 61% (64/105) reported adequate allocation concealment, 51% (54/105) were double-blind, and 75% (79/105) reported adequate sample size calculation. The reported methodological quality greatly improved when compared with historical cohorts.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that there was substantial improvement in the reported methodological quality in the major gastroenterology and hepatology journals, but this quality can be further improved.

Meta-analyses on viral hepatitis

This article summarizes the meta-analyses of interventions for viral hepatitis A, B, and C. Some of the interventions assessed are described in small trials with unclear bias control. Other interventions are supported by large, high-quality trials. Although attempts have been made to adjust for unclear bias control, analysis of publication bias and other biases is difficult when only few trials are available. It is possible that some of the meta-analyses presented in this article are biased. Furthermore, performing updated cumulative meta-analyses also may introduce random error.3,4 The extent and direction of bias may vary. On average, however, bias leads to overestimated intervention benefits.1 Accordingly, the benefit of some of the interventions suggested in this article may be exaggerated by systematic and random errors. Additional research including large, randomized trials is necessary to clarify the true intervention effects.

Development and evaluation of an instrument for the critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials of natural products

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of natural products (NPs) is being evaluated using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with increasing frequency, yet a search of the literature did not identify a widely accepted critical appraisal instrument developed specifically for use with NPs. The purpose of this project was to develop and evaluate a critical appraisal instrument that is sufficiently rigorous to be used in evaluating RCTs of conventional medicines, and also has a section specific for use with single entity NPs, including herbs and natural sourced chemicals.

METHODS

Three phases of the project included: 1) using experts and a Delphi process to reach consensus on a list of items essential in describing the identity of an NP; 2) compiling a list of non-NP items important for evaluating the quality of an RCT using systematic review methodology to identify published instruments and then compiling item categories that were part of a validated instrument and/or had empirical evidence to support their inclusion and 3) conducting a field test to compare the new instrument to a published instrument for usefulness in evaluating the quality of 3 RCTs of a NP and in applying results to practice.

RESULTS

Two Delphi rounds resulted in a list of 15 items essential in describing NPs. Seventeen item categories fitting inclusion criteria were identified from published instruments for conventional medicines. The new assessment instrument was assembled based on content of the two lists and the addition of a Reviewer's Conclusion section. The field test of the new instrument showed good criterion validity. Participants found it useful in translating evidence from RCTs to practice.

CONCLUSION

A new instrument for the critical appraisal of RCTs of NPs was developed and tested. The instrument is distinct from other available assessment instruments for RCTs of NPs in its systematic development and validation. The instrument is ready to be used by pharmacy students, health care practitioners and academics and will continue to be refined as required.

Image-guided percutaneous procedure plus metronidazole versus metronidazole alone for uncomplicated amoebic liver abscess

BACKGROUND

Metronidazole is the standard of care for uncomplicated amoebic liver abscesses (considering that complicated liver abscesses are those localized in left lobe, multiple, and/or pyogenic abscesses). However, a subset of patients with amoebic liver abscesses remain symptomatic, with a significant risk of rupture of the abscess into the peritoneum. The role of image-guided percutaneous therapeutic aspiration in these patients remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of image-guided percutaneous procedure plus metronidazole versus metronidazole alone in patients with uncomplicated amoebic liver abscess.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2007), EMBASE (1988 to September 2007), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1945 to September 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing an image-guided percutaneous procedure plus metronidazole versus metronidazole alone in patients with uncomplicated amoebic liver abscess.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion criteria, trial quality assessment, and data extraction were done in duplicate. We calculated relative risks (RR) and mean differences, and checked for heterogeneity by visual inspection of forest plots and chi-squared and I(2) tests.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven low quality randomised trials were included. All studies included a total of 310 patients, but due to selective outcome reporting bias, less patients could be included in our analyses. Pooled analysis of three homogenous trials showed that needle aspiration did not significantly increase the proportion of patients with fever resolution (RR 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.61). Sensitivity analysis according to trial quality preserved these findings. Trials that evaluated resolution of abdominal pain, days to resolution of fever, pain, resolution of abscess cavities, reduction in liver size, and duration of hospitalisation were heterogeneous. The benefits in the number of days to resolution of pain (MD -1.59, 95%CI -2.73 to -0.42), number of days to resolution of abdominal tenderness (MD -1.70, 95%CI -2.86 to -0.54), and duration of hospitalisation (MD -1.31, 95%CI -2.05 to -0.57) were observed in the needle aspiration group only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic aspiration in addition to metronidazole to hasten clinical or radiologic resolution of uncomplicated amoebic liver abscesses cannot be supported or refuted by the present evidence. The trials lack methodological rigour and adequate sample size to conclude on the presence of effectiveness of adjunctive image-guided aspiration plus metronidazole versus metronidazole alone. Further randomised trials are necessary.

A systematic review of trends in the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in various research fields

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the trends in the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in various medical fields.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Relevant studies were retrieved by the PubMed and the ISI Web of science databases.

RESULTS

Thirty-five out of 457 retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one out of 35 selected studies reported significant improvement in at least one methodological quality factor. Overall quality scores were increased in 13 out of 26 studies providing relevant data. The most commonly separately examined key quality factors were allocation concealment and blinding in 13 out of 21 studies that reported relevant data. Allocation concealment was the quality characteristic most commonly reported as significantly improving during the reviewed period (in five out of eight studies reporting relevant comparative data).

CONCLUSION

Certain aspects of methodological quality have improved significantly over time, but others remain stagnant. Further efforts to improve study design, conduct, and reporting of randomized controlled trials are warranted.

African HIV/AIDS trials are more likely to report adequate allocation concealment and random generation than North American trials

Background

Adherence to good methodological quality is necessary to minimise bias in randomised conrolled trials (RCTs). Specific trial characteristics are associated with better trial quality, but no studies to date are specific to HIV/AIDS or African trials. We postulated that location may negatively impact on trial quality in regions where resources are scarce.

Methods

1) To compare the methodological quality of all HIV/AIDS RCTs conducted in Africa with a random sample of similar trials conducted in North America; 2) To assess whether location is predictive of trial quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and LILACS. Eligible trials were 1) randomized, 2) evaluations of preventive or treatment interventions for HIV/AIDS, 3) reported before 2004, and 4) conducted wholly or partly (if multi-centred) in Africa or North America. We assessed adequacy of random generation, allocation concealment and masking of assessors. Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses we evaluated the association between location (Africa versus North America) and these domains.

Findings

The African search yielded 12,815 records, from which 80 trials were identified. The North American search yielded 13,158 records from which 785 trials were identified and a random sample of 114 selected for analysis. African trials were three times more likely than North American trials to report adequate allocation concealment (OR = 3.24; 95%CI: 1.59 to 6.59; p<0.01) and twice as likely to report adequate generation of the sequence (OR = 2.36; 95%CI: 1.20 to 4.67; p = 0.01), after adjusting for other confounding factors. Additional significant factors positively associated with quality were an a priori sample size power calculation, restricted randomization and inclusion of a flow diagram detailing attrition. We did not detect an association between location and outcome assessor masking.

Conclusions

The higher quality of reporting of methodology in African trials is noteworthy. Most African trials are externally funded, and it is possible that stricter agency requirements when leading trials in other countries and greater experience and training of principal investigators of an international stature, may account for this difference.

Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery: a 20-year review of reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery have not been analyzed comprehensively. We analyzed plastic surgical randomized controlled trials with respect to reporting standards, methodologic quality, and impact on the specialty.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials published from 1986 to 2006 in three major plastic surgery journals were scored for quality and impact using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist, the Jadad criteria, citation numbers, and other parameters. The associations between the quality scores and multiple independent parameters, including trial impact, were explored. The relative impact of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery was compared with that in other specialties.

RESULTS

A total of 163 randomized controlled trials were evaluated. The average Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Jadad scores were 49 percent and 2.3, respectively. There were deficiencies in the reporting of parameters that influence bias and statistical significance. Randomized controlled trials with high impact or high methodologic quality had higher reporting scores. However, the quality and impact scores did not correlate with the number of participants, subject category, country of origin, or year or journal of publication. Nonsurgical trials had significantly higher quality and impact than surgical trials. Randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery had relatively lower impact as compared with randomized controlled trials in other specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting and methodologic standards of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery need improvement. Standards could be improved if well-accepted reporting and methodologic criteria are considered when designing and evaluating randomized controlled trials. Instituting higher standards may improve the impact of randomized controlled trials and make them more influential in plastic surgery.

Trends in the methodological quality of published randomized controlled trials on antibacterial agents

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are believed to be one of the best methods of clinical research because they can minimize systematic errors of various types. Temporal trends in the various aspects of RCTs have been studied in several medical fields (e.g. nephrology, hepatology, oncology). However, there is lack of data regarding the trends in the methodological quality of RCTs focusing on antimicrobial agents.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Several important methodological aspects of RCTs on antibacterial agents, such as description of randomization, double blinding, description of the blinding and allocation concealment, have not improved during the last 30 years. AIM To investigate the trends of the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antimicrobial agents published during the last 30 years.

METHODS

We randomly selected from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database 70 RCTs of antibacterial agents that were published during a 30-year study period (1975-2005); specifically, we randomly selected 10 RCTs published during each of the following years: 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005. In each of the selected RCTs, we searched for information on various methodological aspects and graded the methodological quality of the RCTs to evaluate trends for possible improvement.

RESULTS

No improvement was noted in most of the analysed methodological aspects of the RCTs during the 30-year study period. Description of randomization, double blinding, description of the blinding, and allocation concealment were rather scarce among the evaluated RCTs, without observing a trend for improvement during the study period. We noted improvement in reporting power of the study calculations, baseline data as well as in reporting the presence or not of statistical significance and the statistical cut-off of significance. In only 1/70 RCTs were all 13 of the examined methodological quality aspects met and in one more RCT 12 of them were met.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe considerable improvement in the quality of the reporting and methodology of RCTs on antibacterial agents during the last 30 years. The methodological quality aspects that need most improvement are those that help safeguard against various types of biases.