Assessment of the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials related to the pharmacotherapy of COVID-19 based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist: A Systematic Review

Adaptive, platform trials assessing therapies for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Informed consent forms omitted a few important elements of information

Background

The information provided to participants of adaptive platform trials assessing therapies for COVID-19 inpatients is unknown. We aim to evaluate it by reviewing participant information sheets/informed consent forms (PIS/ICFs).

Methods

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 March 2022) to identify non-industry-sponsored adaptive platform phase 2+ trials with publicly available protocols and PIS/ICFs, selecting versions closest to the initial one. We assessed the elements of information included in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki as present, absent, or deficient (incompletely described).

Results

We included PIS/ICFs of 11 trials (ACCORD-2, ACTIV-1IM, Bari-SolidAct, CATALYST, Discovery, HEAL-COVID, ITAC, RECOVERY, REMAP-COVID, Solidarity and TACTIC-R), which were 4-32 pages long (median (md) = 11). Between two and 11 (md = 6) of the 25 different elements of information assessed were omitted or deficiently described in the PIS/ICFs of the 11 trials. Information about providing trial results, investigators' conflicts of interest, post-study provisions, payment to and anticipated expenses for participants, number of participants, and on whether participants will receive new information that could impact their decision on staying in the trial, were omitted or deficiently described in at least five PIS/ICFs.

Conclusions

Investigators failed to include a few important elements of information in the trial's PIS/ICF deemed relevant by international standards. In protocols of future trials, investigators should explain why elements of information specified in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and/or by the Declaration of Helsinki were omitted from the PIS/ICFs.

Reporting quality was suboptimal in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptive designs

OBJECTIVE

The study was conducted to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that use an adaptive design (AD) based on the 2020 AD Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials 2010 extension (ACE) guidelines and identify factors associated with better reporting quality.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched until November 1, 2022. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to investigate potential predictors.

RESULTS

In total, 109 RCTs were included in our study. The mean compliance rate for the ACE checklist items was 69.75% ± 16.02. Key methodological items including allocation concealment and its implementations were poorly reported. There was also suboptimal reporting of checklist items related to the conduct of interim analyzes. Multivariable regression analysis showed better reporting quality with trial registration, nonindustry affiliation (first author), a sample size of >100, general medical journal type, publication date (≥2020), funding, and disclosure of the number of interim analyzes.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that RCTs with AD had suboptimal reporting of 2020 ACE checklist items, particularly AD-specific items. Following the development of ACE guidelines, stricter adherence to the ACE guideline is necessary to improve their reporting quality. Pre-ACE and post-ACE adherence comparisons can be conducted in the future.

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications.

RESULTS

We identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.