Randomized controlled trials and neuro-oncology: should alternative designs be considered?

Use of the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary tool in low- and middle-income country settings: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and characterize the literature on using the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) tools in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), focusing on successes, challenges, and potential improvements to enhance applicability across diverse settings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic search of PubMed to identify peer-reviewed articles applying PRECIS tools to LMIC-based research. Data extraction focused on trial characteristics, modifications, and use of PRECIS tools. Narrative synthesis was used to outline successes, challenges, and recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 40 articles met the selection criteria. The PRECIS tools were mostly (n = 39, 97.5%) used for purposes other than trial design. Significant variation was seen in methods of use and reporting. Most (n = 32, 80%) used PRECIS-2, valued for its reliability, ability to quantify pragmatism, assess trial design, and identify research gaps. Challenges included the tools' subjectivity, absence of information needed for scoring, interpretation of scores, and application to non-Western contexts and multinational trials. Recommendations for improvement included refining scoring criteria, translating guidance, and developing additional educational resources.

CONCLUSION

The PRECIS tools have successfully supported research globally and are perceived as reliable research tools with multiple strengths. Further guidance and refinement would enable consistent application and reporting, particularly as the tools have frequently been used for purposes other than their original intention. Most challenges were similar to high-income settings; however, translation and application of the tools to traditional medicine, international trials, and research-naïve settings were highlighted as LMIC-focused issues requiring consideration.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) tools were created to help researchers design better studies. The tools were developed mainly by researchers from developed Western nations. Therefore, it is possible that the PRECIS tools are not as relevant to other places. To help improve the usefulness of the tools in all settings, our team wanted to learn from the experiences of people who had already used PRECIS in low- and middle-income countries. We systematically searched for academic papers on this topic published before May 2022 and found 40 relevant articles. The articles showed that the PRECIS tools had been successfully used in many, often unexpected, ways to support research. Some researchers struggled with using the tool to assess research conducted by others, as relevant information was not available. Researchers recommended translating the tools to other languages and asked for more guidance to use the tool in specific circumstances, such as Chinese herbal medicine and large international research projects. Advice on the best ways to use the PRECIS tools and report the findings would also be beneficial. We share these findings to help those designing the next version of the tool make it useful for researchers working in all parts of the world.

Spin in the neurosurgical trauma literature: prevalence and associated factors - a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Spin is defined as an inaccurate interpretation of results, intentionally or not, leading to equivocal conclusions and misdirecting readers to look at the data in an overly optimistic way. Previous studies have shown a high prevalence of spin in scientific papers and this systematic review aims to investigate the nature and prevalence of spin in the neurosurgical trauma literature. Any associated factors will be identified to guide future research practice recommendations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations will be followed. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled only patients with traumatic brain injury and investigated any type of intervention (surgical or non-surgical) will be eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE/PubMed database will be searched for articles in English published in 15 top-ranked journals. Spin will be defined as (1) a focus on statistically significant results not based on the primary outcome; (2) interpreting statistically non-significant results for a superiority analysis of the primary outcome; (3) claiming or emphasising the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically non-significant results; (4) conclusion focused in the per-protocol or as-treated analysis instead of the intention-to-treat results; (5) incorrect statistical analysis; (6) republication of a significant secondary analysis without proper acknowledgement of the primary outcome analysis result. Traditional descriptive statistics will be used to present RCT characteristics. Standardised differences between the groups with or without spin will be calculated. The variables with a standardised difference equal or above 0.2 and 0.5 will be considered weakly and strongly associated with spin, respectively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not involve primary data collection and patients will not be involved.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/H3FGY.

Cost-Effectiveness of Low-Field Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance in Glioma Surgery

Object

Low-field intraoperative magnetic resonance (LF-iMR) has demonstrated a slight increase in the extent of resection of intra-axial tumors while preserving patient`s neurological outcomes. However, whether this improvement is cost-effective or not is still matter of controversy. In this clinical investigation we sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of a LF-iMR in glioma surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing LF-iMR guided glioma surgery with gross total resection (GTR) intention were prospectively collected and compared to an historical cohort operated without this technology. Socio-demographic and clinical variables (pre and postoperative KPS; histopathological classification; Extent of resection; postoperative complications; need of re-intervention within the first year and 1-year postoperative survival) were collected and analyzed. Effectiveness variables were assessed in both groups: Postoperative Karnofsky performance status scale (pKPS); overall survival (OS); Progression-free survival (PFS); and a variable accounting for the number of patients with a greater than subtotal resection and same or higher postoperative KPS (R-KPS). All preoperative, procedural and postoperative costs linked to the treatment were considered for the cost-effectiveness analysis (diagnostic procedures, prosthesis, operating time, hospitalization, consumables, LF-iMR device, etc). Deterministic and probabilistic simulations were conducted to evaluate the consistency of our analysis.

Results

50 patients were operated with LF-iMR assistance, while 146 belonged to the control group. GTR rate, pKPS, R-KPS, PFS, and 1-year OS were respectively 13,8% (not significative), 7 points (p < 0.05), 17% (p < 0.05), 38 days (p < 0.05), and 3.7% (not significative) higher in the intervention group. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a mean incremental cost per patient of 789 € in the intervention group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 111 € per additional point of pKPS, 21 € per additional day free of progression, and 46 € per additional percentage point of R-KPS.

Conclusion

Glioma patients operated under LF-iMR guidance experience a better functional outcome, higher resection rates, less complications, better PFS rates but similar life expectancy compared to conventional techniques. In terms of efficiency, LF-iMR is very close to be a dominant technology in terms of R-KPS, PFS and pKPS.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting according to the CONSORT statement in randomized controlled trials with glioblastoma patients

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the best evidence in oncology research. Glioblastoma is the most frequent and deadly primary brain tumor, affecting health-related quality of life. An important end point is patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There are no data regarding how well publications of glioblastoma RCTs report PROs. A specific PRO extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was created to improve the quality of reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to the CONSORT-PRO statement in reporting RCTs addressing the treatment of patients with glioblastoma. PRO analysis methodology was explored and criteria associated with higher quality of reporting were investigated.

Methods

From PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases, all phase 2 and 3 RCTs related to glioblastoma published between 1995 and 2018 were reviewed according to the CONSORT-PRO statements. An overall quality score on a 0 to 100 scale was defined based on these criteria and factors associated with this score were identified.

Results

Forty-four RCTs were identified as relevant according to predefined criteria. The median overall quality score was 26. No difference was observed regarding reporting quality over the years. CONSORT-PRO items concerning data collection and analysis were poorly reported. Thirty-four trials (77%) used longitudinal data. The most frequent statistical method for PROs analysis was the mean change from baseline (63%). Factors associated with improved overall quality score were the presence of a secondary publication dedicated to PROs results, the statement of any targeted dimensions, and when trials reported results using multiple methods.

Conclusion

Despite the importance of measuring PROs in patients with glioblastoma, employment of the CONSORT-PRO statement is poor in RCTs.

Real-world experiences with generating real-world evidence: Case Studies from PCORI's pragmatic clinical Studies program

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, randomized studies evaluating outcomes of health care interventions conducted in real-world settings-often termed "pragmatic trials"-have come to be seen as an important means of obtaining relevant, actionable evidence to guide health care decisions. Despite extensive writing on methodological considerations in pragmatic trial design, limited information exists regarding the practical and logistical challenges encountered in carrying out rigorous randomized evaluations in highly representative, real-world contexts.

METHODS

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) convened an expert panel in 2017 to examine common tradeoffs in study design and implementation through 3 "case studies" of in-progress, PCORI-funded pragmatic trials. This paper summarizes the findings of this panel, using the 3 examples to illustrate common implementation challenges encountered in pragmatic trials.

RESULTS

Investigators aimed to generate highly generalizable findings that could address real-world clinical decisions; however, practical considerations required that each study incorporate traditionally "explanatory" elements to achieve a "fit-for-purpose" approach to design and implementation. Within individual studies, efforts to balance pragmatic versus explanatory perspectives often involved multiple, diverse aspects of trial design and implementation, and the aspects of design and implementation where investigators reported encountering such tradeoffs varied across the three cases we examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to generate rigorous evidence that is generalizable to "real-world" practice require continuous and iterative efforts to balance "pragmatic" and "explanatory" perspectives. In each study examined, these tradeoffs were guided both by an overriding effort to maintain pragmatism and practical considerations that varied depending on the research question and study context.

Is Scientific Medical Literature Related to Endometriosis Treatment Evidence-Based? A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background and objectives: Informed decision-making requires the ability to identify and integrate high-quality scientific evidence in daily practice. We aimed to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on endometriosis therapy follow methodological criteria corresponding to the RCTs' specific level in the hierarchy of evidence in such details to allow the reproduction and replication of the study. Materials and Methods: Using the keywords "therapy" and "endometriosis" and "efficacy" three bibliographic databases were searched for English written scientific articles published from 1 January 2008 to 3 March 2018. Only the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were evaluated in terms of whether they provided the appropriate level of scientific evidence, equivalent to level 1, degree 1b in the hierarchy of evidence. A list of criteria to ensure study replication and reproduction, considering CONSORT guideline and MECIR standards, was developed and used to evaluate RCTs' methodological soundness, and scores were granted. Three types of bias, namely selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), and attrition bias (incomplete outcome data) were also evaluated. Results: We found 387 articles on endometriosis therapy, of which 38 were RCTs: 30 double-blinded RCTs and 8 open-label RCTs. No article achieved the maximum score according to the evaluated methodological criteria. Even though 73.3% of the double-blinded RCTs had clear title, abstract, introduction, and objectives, only 13.3% provided precise information regarding experimental design and randomization, and also showed a low risk of bias. The blinding method was poorly reported in 43.3% of the double-blinded RCTs, while allocation concealment and random sequence generation were inadequate in 33.3% of them. Conclusions: None of the evaluated RCTs met all the methodological criteria, none had only a low risk of bias and provided sufficient details on methods and randomization to allow for the reproduction and replication of the study. Consequently, the appropriate level of scientific evidence (level 1, degree 1b) could not be granted. On endometriosis therapy, this study evaluated the quality of reporting in RCTs and not the quality of how the studies were performed.

Randomized controlled trials comparing surgery to non-operative management in neurosurgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains the pinnacle of clinical research design. However, RCTs in neurosurgery, especially those comparing surgery to non-operative treatment, are rare and their relevance and applicability have been questioned. This study set out to assess trial design and quality and identify their influence on outcomes in recent neurosurgical trials that compare surgery to non-operative treatment.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2017, PubMed and Embase databases and four trial registries were searched. RCTs were evaluated for study design, funding, adjustments to reported outcome measures, accrual of patients, and academic impact.

RESULTS

Eighty-two neurosurgical RCTs were identified, 40 in spine disorders, 19 neurovascular and neurotrauma, 11 functional neurosurgery, ten peripheral nerve, and two pituitary surgery. Eighty-four RCTs were registered, of which some are ongoing. Trial registration rate differed per subspecialty. Funding was mostly from non-industry institutions (58.5%), but 25.6% of RCTs did not report funding sources. 36.4% of RCTs did not report a difference between surgical and non-operative treatment, 3.7% favored non-operative management. Primary and secondary outcome measures were changed in 13.2% and 34.2% of RCTs respectively and varied by subspecialty. 41.9% of RCTs subtracted ≥ 10% of the anticipated accrual and 12.9% of RCTs added ≥ 10%. 7.3% of registered RCTs were terminated, mostly due to too slow recruitment. Subspecialty, registration, funding, masking, population size, and changing outcome measures were not significantly associated with a reported benefit of surgery. High Jadad scores (≥ 4) were negatively associated with a demonstration of surgical benefit (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgical RCTs comparing surgical to non-operative treatment often find a benefit for surgical treatment. Changes to outcome measurements and anticipated accrual are common and funding sources are not always reported.

Citation classics in neuro-oncology: assessment of historical trends and scientific progress

Background

Citation classics represent the highest cited works in a field and are often regarded as the most influential literature. Analyzing thematic trends in citation classics across eras enables recognition of important historical advances within a field. We present the first analysis of the citation classics in neuro-oncology.

Methods

The Web of Science database was searched using terms relevant to "neuro-oncology." Articles with >400 citations were identified and the top 100 cited articles were evaluated.

Results

The top 100 neuro-oncology citation classics consisted of 43 clinical studies (17 retrospective, 10 prospective, 16 randomized trials), 43 laboratory investigations, 8 reviews/meta-analyses, and 6 guidelines/consensus statements. Articles were classified into 4 themes: 13 pertained to tumor classification, 37 to tumor pathogenesis/clinical presentation, 6 to imaging, 44 to therapy (15 chemotherapy, 10 radiotherapy, 5 surgery, 14 new agents). Gliomas were the most common tumor type examined, with 70 articles. There was a significant increase in the number of citation classics in the late 1990s, which was paralleled by an increase in studies examining tumor pathogenesis, chemotherapy, and new agents along with laboratory and randomized studies.

Conclusions

The majority of citation classics in neuro-oncology are related to gliomas and pertain to tumor pathogenesis and treatment. The rise in citation classics in recent years investigating tumor biology, new treatment agents, and chemotherapeutics may reflect increasing scientific interest in nonsurgical treatments for CNS tumors and the need for fundamental investigations into disease processes.

Gross total resection of pituitary adenomas after endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Microscopic transsphenoidal surgery (mTSS) is a well-established method to address adenomas of the pituitary gland. Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (eTSS) has become a viable alternative, however. Advocates suggest that the greater illumination, panoramic visualization, and angled endoscopic views afforded by eTSS may allow for higher rates of gross total tumor resection (GTR). The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the rate of GTR using mTSS and eTSS.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of the literature was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through July 2017 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Seventy case series that reported GTR rate in 8257 pituitary adenoma patients were identified. For all pituitary adenomas, eTSS (GTR=74.0%; I² = 92.1%) was associated with higher GTR as compared to mTSS (GTR=66.4%; I² = 84.0%) in a fixed-effect model (P-interaction < 0.01). For functioning pituitary adenomas (FPAs) (n = 1170 patients), there was no significant difference in GTR rate between eTSS (GTR=75.8%; I² = 63.9%) and mTSS (GTR=75.5%; I² = 79.0%); (P-interaction = 0.92). For nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) (n = 2655 patients), eTSS (GTR=71.0%; I² = 86.4%) was associated with higher GTR as compared to mTSS (GTR=60.7%; I² = 87.5%) in a fixed-effect model (P-interaction < 0.01). None of the associations were significant in a random-effect model (all P-interaction > 0.05). No significant publication bias was identified for any of the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who were not randomly allocated to either approach, eTSS resulted in a higher rate of GTR as compared to mTSS for all patients and for NFPA patients alone, but only in a fixed-effect model. For FPA, however, eTSS did not seem to offer a significantly higher rate of GTR. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution because of the nature of the included non-comparative studies.