The design of randomized controlled trials of veterinary vaccines

Invited review: Completeness of reporting of experiments: REFLECTing on a year of animal trials in the Journal of Dairy Science

Reproducibility is an essential element of the scientific process, and it requires clear and complete reporting of study design, conduct, and analysis. In the human and animal health literature, incomplete reporting is associated with biased effect estimates. Moreover, incomplete reporting precludes knowledge synthesis and undervalues the resources allocated to the primary research. The Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials for Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT) statement, published in 2010, is a checklist developed by expert consensus to provide guidance on what study elements should be reported in any intervention trial (designed experiment) involving livestock. The Journal of Dairy Science (JDS) has recently endorsed the use of reporting guidelines. To assess the status of reporting of controlled experiments in JDS and to provide a baseline for future comparison, we evaluated the reporting of 18 items from the REFLECT statement checklist in a sample of 137 controlled trials published in JDS in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and then evaluated a sample of 120 papers reporting controlled trials (experimental studies involving at least one intervention and one comparison or control group), using yes or no questions. Although some items, such as treatment details and statistical analysis, were well reported, other areas, including sample size justification, allocation concealment, blinding, study flow, baseline data, and ancillary analyses, were often not reported or were incompletely described. This work highlights the need for authors and reviewers to take advantage of guidelines and checklists for reporting. Adherence to reporting guidelines can help improve the completeness of reporting of research, expedite and better inform the peer-review process, increase clarity for the reader, and allow for knowledge synthesis, such as meta-analysis, all of which serve to increase the value of the work conducted.

The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision-making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996 with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies, the use of a deliberate challenge model in some trials, and common use of non-clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies.

Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating efficacy of treatments under real world conditions and, as such, it is important that they are conducted with methodological rigour to prevent biased results. Many medical journals have adopted a standard checklist for reporting of RCTs, the CONSORT statement. The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical trials in livestock populations to assess methodological quality and completeness of reporting and to investigate the association between these criteria and treatment effects. A total of 100 clinical trials published between 2006 and 2008 in the English language were randomly selected. For each trial, 2 reviewers independently completed a checklist based on the CONSORT statement and a different 2 reviewers completed a standard template describing the outcomes used and the statistical significance of all reported treatment effects. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved by consensus. The results showed that there were substantive deficiencies in the reporting of many of trial features, both related to methodological quality and completeness of reporting. Details on key features such as randomization, double blinding, and the number of subjects lost to follow-up were reported in only 67, 4, and 62% of trials, respectively. Reporting of random allocation to treatment group was associated with a lower proportion of positive treatments effects within trials, as was reporting of inclusion/exclusion criteria for study subjects, details on the intervention, animal signalment, significance tests of baseline differences for at least one variable, and the methods used to measure all outcomes. The results suggest that there are deficiencies in the current reporting of important features of RCTs conducted in livestock species and that these deficiencies may be associated with biased treatment effects. The creation and adoption of standards for trial reporting in livestock could aid authors, reviewers, and editors in ensuring that necessary trial details are reported in all published trials.