1
|
Winiker K, Kertscher B. Behavioural interventions for swallowing in subjects with Parkinson's disease: A mixed methods systematic review. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION DISORDERS 2023. [PMID: 36951546 DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12865] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dysphagia is prevalent in subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD). Swallowing intervention to improve or maintain swallowing function is of major importance as dysphagia may considerably impact physical and psycho-social health. AIMS A mixed methods systematic review was conducted to summarize and appraise literature reporting (1) effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with PD; and (2) participants' perspectives of swallowing interventions. METHODS & PROCEDURES Electronic databases were searched systematically in July 2020 for articles published between 2014 and 2020. In addition, studies published between 2000 and 2014 were identified non-systematically through previous reviews. Peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative research in English or German documenting behavioural interventions for swallowing in individuals with a diagnosis of PD was eligible for inclusion. Participants at all disease stages were included. Behavioural interventions included rehabilitative and compensatory strategies. Studies reporting swallowing outcomes with and without a comparative group were included. For each study, the National Health and Medical Research Council level of evidence was defined. Included studies were critically appraised using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. An integrated synthesis was performed after separate analysis of effect data and data reflecting participants' experiences. This review was conducted based on published JBI methodology and the guideline from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis system was followed. MAIN CONTRIBUTION A total of 33 studies published in English met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-one studies reported quantitative data, one was qualitative and one was mixed methods. Intervention effects on swallowing function, swallowing safety and swallowing-related quality of life were reported for various treatment approaches. Three studies explored how participants perceived the intervention. Overriding themes including subjects' views regarding treatment schedules and levels of effort or comfort associated with the intervention were identified across these studies. Combining evidence of intervention effects and subjects' experiences was possible for one rehabilitative and one compensatory intervention. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS Beneficial effects of swallowing interventions have been reported; however, most experiments were case studies of variable methodological quality. Randomized-controlled trials with robust methodology to explore treatment effects in larger samples is needed to guide clinical practice. Research reporting subjects' views is scarce. More studies exploring how individuals perceive behavioural interventions for swallowing are necessary to inform clinical decision-making. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS What is already known on the subject Dysphagia is common in individuals with PD. Swallowing intervention is of major importance as dysphagia may negatively affect physical and psycho-social health of subjects with PD. What this study adds Beneficial effects of behavioural interventions for swallowing, including rehabilitative and compensatory strategies, have been reported; however, available data are mostly based on case studies of variable quality. Data on how participants perceive specific behavioural interventions are lacking. Based on the available data, integration of efficacy data and individuals' experiences is limited. What are the clinical implications of this work? Given the current evidence of intervention effects and individuals' views on behavioural treatment strategies, interventions implemented into clinical practice require careful evaluation on a case-by-case basis. More high-quality research is needed to examine interventions' short- and long-term effects in larger samples to guide clinical practice. In addition to studies evaluating intervention effects, research exploring participants' experiences with interventions is required as a foundation for clinical decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katharina Winiker
- Department of Research and Development, Swiss University of Speech and Language Sciences SHLR, Rorschach, Switzerland
| | - Berit Kertscher
- Institute for Therapy & Rehabilitation, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Butcher NJ, Monsour A, Mew EJ, Chan AW, Moher D, Mayo-Wilson E, Terwee CB, Chee-A-Tow A, Baba A, Gavin F, Grimshaw JM, Kelly LE, Saeed L, Thabane L, Askie L, Smith M, Farid-Kapadia M, Williamson PR, Szatmari P, Tugwell P, Golub RM, Monga S, Vohra S, Marlin S, Ungar WJ, Offringa M. Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension. JAMA 2022; 328:2345-2356. [PMID: 36512367 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.21243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. OBJECTIVE To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. EVIDENCE REVIEW Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. FINDINGS The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy J Butcher
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrea Monsour
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Emma J Mew
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Evan Mayo-Wilson
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
| | - Caroline B Terwee
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Methodology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ami Baba
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Frank Gavin
- public panel member, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeremy M Grimshaw
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lauren E Kelly
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
- Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Leena Saeed
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lehana Thabane
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lisa Askie
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Mufiza Farid-Kapadia
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paula R Williamson
- MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England
| | - Peter Szatmari
- Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robert M Golub
- Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Suneeta Monga
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sunita Vohra
- Departments of Pediatrics and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Susan Marlin
- Clinical Trials Ontario, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Wendy J Ungar
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Butcher NJ, Monsour A, Mew EJ, Chan AW, Moher D, Mayo-Wilson E, Terwee CB, Chee-A-Tow A, Baba A, Gavin F, Grimshaw JM, Kelly LE, Saeed L, Thabane L, Askie L, Smith M, Farid-Kapadia M, Williamson PR, Szatmari P, Tugwell P, Golub RM, Monga S, Vohra S, Marlin S, Ungar WJ, Offringa M. Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension. JAMA 2022; 328:2252-2264. [PMID: 36511921 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.21022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 52.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. OBJECTIVE To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. EVIDENCE REVIEW Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. FINDINGS The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy J Butcher
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrea Monsour
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Emma J Mew
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Evan Mayo-Wilson
- Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
| | - Caroline B Terwee
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Methodology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ami Baba
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Frank Gavin
- public panel member, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeremy M Grimshaw
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lauren E Kelly
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
- Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Leena Saeed
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lehana Thabane
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lisa Askie
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Mufiza Farid-Kapadia
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paula R Williamson
- MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England
| | - Peter Szatmari
- Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robert M Golub
- Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Suneeta Monga
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sunita Vohra
- Departments of Pediatrics and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Susan Marlin
- Clinical Trials Ontario, Toronto, Canada
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Wendy J Ungar
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Núñez-Cortés R, Alvarez G, Pérez-Bracchiglione J, Cabanas-Valdés R, Calvo-Sanz J, Bonfill X, Urrutia G. Reporting results in manual therapy clinical trials: A need for improvement. INT J OSTEOPATH MED 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijosm.2021.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
|
5
|
Ding S, Mew EJ, Chee-A-Tow A, Offringa M, Butcher NJ, Moore GP. Neurodevelopmental outcome descriptions in cohorts of extremely preterm children. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2020; 105:510-519. [PMID: 31932362 DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-318144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2019] [Revised: 12/09/2019] [Accepted: 12/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Caregivers and clinicians of extremely preterm infants (born before 26 weeks' gestation) depend on long-term follow-up research to inform clinical decision-making. The completeness of outcome reporting in this area is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting of outcome definitions, selection, measurement and analysis in existing cohort studies that report on neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born extremely preterm. METHODS We evaluated the completeness of reporting of 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' in prospective cohort studies summarised in a meta-analysis that assessed the effect of preterm birth on school-age neurodevelopment. Outcome reporting was evaluated using a checklist of 55 items addressing outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, presentation and interpretation. Reporting frequencies were calculated to identify strengths and deficiencies in outcome descriptions. RESULTS All 14 included studies reported 'cognitive function' as an outcome; nine reported both 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' as outcomes. Studies reported between 26% and 46% of the 55 outcome reporting items assessed; results were similar for 'cognitive function' and 'cerebral palsy' (on average 34% and 33% of items reported, respectively). Key methodological concepts often omitted included the reporting of masking of outcome assessors, methods used to handle missing data and stakeholder involvement in outcome selection. CONCLUSIONS The reporting of neurodevelopmental outcomes in cohort studies of infants born extremely preterm is variable and often incomplete. This may affect stakeholders' interpretation of study results, impair knowledge synthesis efforts and limit evidence-based decision-making for this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon Ding
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,CHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Emma J Mew
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nancy J Butcher
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gregory P Moore
- CHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada .,Paediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Newborn Care, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Butcher NJ, Mew EJ, Monsour A, Chan AW, Moher D, Offringa M. Outcome reporting recommendations for clinical trial protocols and reports: a scoping review. Trials 2020; 21:620. [PMID: 32641085 PMCID: PMC7341657 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04440-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2019] [Accepted: 05/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development. METHODS We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items. RESULTS In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources. CONCLUSIONS Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy J. Butcher
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - Emma J. Mew
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - Andrea Monsour
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women’s College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON Canada
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, Toronto, ON Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
- Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Butcher NJ, Monsour A, Mew EJ, Szatmari P, Pierro A, Kelly LE, Farid-Kapadia M, Chee-A-Tow A, Saeed L, Monga S, Ungar W, Terwee CB, Vohra S, Fergusson D, Askie LM, Williamson PR, Chan AW, Moher D, Offringa M. Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT). Trials 2019; 20:161. [PMID: 30841935 PMCID: PMC6404348 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2018] [Accepted: 02/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines. Methods The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities. Discussion InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy J Butcher
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.
| | - Andrea Monsour
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
| | - Emma J Mew
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
| | - Peter Szatmari
- Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.,Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.,Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Agostino Pierro
- Division of General and Thoracic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
| | - Lauren E Kelly
- Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Clinical Trials Platform, George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Mufiza Farid-Kapadia
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
| | - Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
| | - Leena Saeed
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
| | - Suneeta Monga
- Department of Psychiatry, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
| | - Wendy Ungar
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.,Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Caroline B Terwee
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sunita Vohra
- The Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Dean Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.,Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Lisa M Askie
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Paula R Williamson
- MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Martin Offringa
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|