Using the CONSORT statement to evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised trials: a cross-sectional review

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry: reporting quality and spin

BACKGROUND

Abstracts provide readers a concise and readily accessible information of the trials. However, poor reporting quality and spin (misrepresentation of research findings) can lead to an overestimation in trial validity. This methodological study aimed to assess the reporting quality and spin among randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in pediatric dentistry.

METHODS

We hand-searched RCTs in five leading pediatric dental journals between 2015 and 2021. Reporting quality in each abstract was assessed using the original 16-item CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality. We evaluated the presence and characteristics of spin only in abstracts of parallel-group RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes according to pre-determined spin strategies.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-two abstracts were included in reporting quality evaluation. The mean overall quality score was 4.57 (SD, 0.103; 95% CI, 4.36-4.77; score range, 1-10). Only interventions, objective, and conclusions were adequately reported. Use of flow diagram (P < 0.001) was the only significant factor of higher reporting quality. Of the 51 RCT abstracts included for spin analysis, spin was identified in 40 abstracts (78.4%), among which 23 abstracts (45.1%) had spin in the Results section and 39 in the Conclusions Sect. (76.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in pediatric dentistry is suboptimal and the prevalence of spin is high. Joint efforts are needed to improve reporting quality and minimize spin.

Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in trials on alcohol use disorder: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

Currently, limited research exists to assess the extent of patient-reported outcome (PRO) reporting among randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating alcohol use disorder (AUD). We sought to investigate the completeness of reporting of PROs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO (CONSORT-PRO) extension in AUD RCTs.

DESIGN SETTING

Meta-epidemiological study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on 29 June 2021 for published RCTs focused on AUD. Following these searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text screening were performed by two investigators. To be included, a study must have employed a randomised trial design, published in English, focused on treatment of AUD and included at least one PRO. Trials meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the CONSORT-PRO extension adaptation. These trials were also evaluated for risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB V.2.0 tool. Additionally, an exploratory analysis of each RCT's therapeutic area was extracted using the Mapi Research Trust's ePROVIDE platform. Screening and data collection were all performed in masked, duplicate fashion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRO completeness of reporting, identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting and PRO measures used in RCTs to evaluate patients with AUD.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were evaluated in our analysis. Our primary outcome, the mean completion score for CONSORT-PRO, was 40.8%. Our secondary outcome-the identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting-found that trials published after 2014 (ie, 1 year after the publication of the CONSORT-PRO extension) were 15.0% more complete than trials published before 2014. We found no additional associations with better reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the completeness of PRO reporting in RCTs involving AUD was deficient. Complete reporting of PROs is instrumental in understanding the effects of interventions, encourages patient participation in their treatment and may increase clinician confidence in the value of PROs. High quality treatment strategies for AUD require properly reported PROs.

A scoping review identifies multiple comments suggesting modifications to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010

OBJECTIVES

To identify, summarize, and analyse comments on the core reporting guidelines for protocols of randomized trials (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT] 2013) and for completed trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] 2010), with special emphasis on suggestions for guideline modifications.

METHODS

We included documents written in English and published after 2010 that explicitly commented on SPIRIT 2013 or CONSORT 2010. We searched four bibliographic databases (Embase and MEDLINE to June 2022; Web of Science and Google Scholar to April 2022) and other sources (e.g., the EQUATOR Network website, the BMC Blog Network, and the BMJ rapid response section). Two authors independently assessed documents for eligibility and extracted data on basic characteristics and the wording of the main comments. We categorized comments as 'suggestion for modification to the wording of an existing guideline item,' 'suggestion for a new item,' or 'reflections on challenges or strengths.' We provided a summary and examples of the proposed suggestions and categorized comments into those that were directly linked to empirical investigations, were continuations of previous methodological discussions, or reflected new methodological developments.

RESULTS

We assessed full text of 2,320 potentially eligible documents and included 93 documents with 114 comments. In total, 37 comments suggested modifications to existing guideline items. The participant flow section of CONSORT 2010 received the most comments (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add numbers on nonrandomized screened participants). There were 46 comments suggesting new items. Multiple suggestions were related to trial interventions (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on cointerventions), blinding (six comments suggested to add content on risk of unblinding), statistical methods (five comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on blinding of statisticians), and participant flow (seven comments made different suggestions, e.g., three comments suggested to add content on missing data). Half (53%) of the suggestions were directly linked to empirical investigations. Six (7%) suggestions were continuations of previous methodological discussions and five (6%) suggestions reflected new methodological developments related to conflicts of interest and funding, data sharing, and patient and public involvement.

CONCLUSION

The issues raised provide context to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers of trials using SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 and inform the planned updates of the core guidelines.

A comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in clinical trials of opioid use disorder: ACTTION review and recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prospective trial registration can increase research integrity. This Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) review was designed to compare the primary outcomes (PO) reported in registries with associated publications for opioid use disorder (OUD) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was searched for completed trials (2010 through 2019). Associated publications were identified and paired with trial registry data based on the publication date.

MEASUREMENTS

Reviewers independently rated the occurrence of discrepancies between the POs in the registry compared to the publication. An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration was also completed.

FINDINGS

One-hundred and forty trials were identified in the search, and 43 registry-publication pairs evaluated. Only 34 of the 43 pairs could be examined for discrepancies because nine did not report a PO in registry and publication. Of the 34 pairs, only four met rigorous criteria for prospective trial registration and had an exact match of POs. In contrast, the majority of the 34 trials, or 80%, had inconsistent POs (e.g., registered secondary outcomes published as primary; the timing of PO not specified) and/or were retrospectively registered.

CONCLUSIONS

Many clinical trials focused on OUD have not met the standards of trial registration, such as consistent reporting of POs and prospective registration. Failure to properly register trial characteristics undermines the validity of research findings and can delay the development of life-saving treatments. Recommendations for improving prospective trial reporting practices are provided.

The evaluation of reporting of patient-reported outcomes in MDD: A meta-epidemiological study of clinical trials

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a multifaceted disease that profoundly affects quality of life. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to better understand patient perspectives on interventions. Therefore, we sought to assess the completeness of reporting PROs in RCTs addressing MDD. We identified RCTs evaluating MDD containing a PRO measure published between 2016 and 2020 from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion of studies was performed in duplicate. The completion of reporting of RCTs was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) adaptation. Bivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate reporting completeness and trial characteristics. A total of 49 RCTs were included in our analysis, with a mean CONSORT-PRO completion score of 56.7% (SD = 17.3).Our findings show a significant association with completeness of reporting and the following: secondary PRO trials were less completely reported as compared to primary PRO trials (t = -3.19, p = .003); studies with a follow-up period between six months and year were more completely reported as compared to three months or less (6 months to a year, t = 2.34, p = .024); and increased trial sample size was associated with more completeness of reporting (t = 3.17, p = .003). As compared to brain stimulation, the intervention types classified as combination, other, and psychotherapy had greater completeness of reporting (combination, t = 2.35, p = .024; other, t = 3.13, p = .003; psychotherapy, t = 3.41, p = .001). There were no other significant findings. Our study found the completeness of PRO reporting to be inconsistent in RCTs regarding MDD. Moreover, we advocate for the need to establish a core outcome set relevant to the management of adults diagnosed with MDD and facilitate training on the application of PRO data.

Sensitivity of clinician-assessed efficacy outcome measurement instruments in trials of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The rising prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in developing countries and its substantial socioeconomic impact have furthered research over the last two decades giving way to advances in its aetiopathogenesis and treatment. Topical therapies targeting newly identified AD signalling pathways are being developed. Numerous clinician-assessed disease severity outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are available to evaluate the efficacy of investigational treatments in proof-of-concept (POC) trials for AD. However, little is known about the comparative sensitivity of these efficacy OMIs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sensitivity of different OMIs in controlled trials of topical therapies for AD published between January 1, 2000 and April 7, 2020. Treatment effect size of OMIs reported at Week 4 was calculated with 95% Confidence Interval (CI). The sensitivity of OMIs was compared by pooling the standardized difference between means (Cohen's d and Cohen's h) for any two OMI-parameter combinations that were reported in ≥3 studies identified in our systematic review. Assessed parameters were difference between active and vehicle at Week 4 and change from baseline [CFB] and percentage change from baseline [%CFB] at Week 4. We identified a total of 15 studies with 3313 subjects examining 14 different OMIs were included in this quantitative meta-analysis. Continuous OMIs had a significantly higher treatment effect size vs. dichotomous OMIs (P = 0.006). Comparisons of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), body surface area (BSA) and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) for available parameters were performed and generally had a similar sensitivity, with BSA showing smaller overall effect size estimates. In conclusion, continuous OMIs used in topical clinical trials for AD had significantly higher treatment effect sizes when compared to dichotomous OMIs. Continuous OMIs could provide more power for POC trials with a small sample size in atopic dermatitis with topical therapies.

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society

Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.

Evaluation of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs.

RESULTS

53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Although many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.

Quality Evaluation of Randomized Controlled Trials of Rhodiola Species: A Systematic Review

Background

Rhodiola is a worldwide used medicinal plant for its various medicinal functions, and the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Rhodiola is increasing in recent years. This study aims to evaluate the reporting quality and risk of bias of the current RCT reports of different Rhodiola species.

Methods

Six databases including Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrial.gov, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched to identify RCTs that used Rhodiola as a single intervention and were published in English or Chinese from inception to December 2020. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was used as the checklist for assessment, and a scoring system was applied to the evaluation of RCTs. Score 0 represents no reporting or inadequate reporting, and score 1 represents adequate reporting. The risk of bias of the included studies was also assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs were included in this study, including 23 RCTs of Rhodiola rosea (R. rosea), 8 RCTs of Rhodiola crenulata (R. crenulata), and 8 RCTs of Rhodiola wallichiana (R. wallichiana). None of the included studies met all the CONSORT statement criteria, and the reporting quality of RCTs of the three Rhodiola species was all generally poor. Based on the risk of bias assessment, the majority of included studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias in most domains due to inadequate reporting.

Conclusions

There is inadequate reporting among the included RCTs of different Rhodiola species, and RCTs of Rhodiola with higher reporting quality and better methodological quality are needed.

Evaluation of Risks of Bias in Addiction Medicine Randomized Controlled Trials

AIMS

Perhaps the most important step when designing and conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in addiction is to put methodological safeguards in place to minimize the likelihood for bias to affect trial outcomes. In this study, we applied the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to RCTs of drug, alcohol or tobacco interventions.

METHODS

We searched for trials published in 15 addiction medicine journals over a 7-year period. Our primary endpoint is the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of publicly funded trials.

RESULTS

Overall, included RCTs were most often at high risk of bias per our judgments (244/487, 50.1%). However, significant proportions of included RCTs were at low risk of bias (123/487, 25.3%) or some concerns for bias (120/497, 24.6%). RCTs with behavioral modification interventions (19/44, 43.2%) and alcohol interventions (80/150, 53.3%) had the highest proportion of high-risk judgments. In a sensitivity analysis of publicly funded RCTs), 195/386 (50.5%) were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of included drug, alcohol or tobacco RCTs in our sample were judged to be at high risk of bias with the most common reason being a lack of proper blinding or proper description of blinding. Key action items to reduce bias in future addiction RCTs include adequate randomization, blinding and inclusion of a trial registry number and protocol.

A Review of Adherence and Predictors of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials

The statement on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) ensures transparency in the reporting of randomized trials. However, it is unclear if the statement has led to improvement in the quality of reporting of tuberculosis (TB) vaccine trials. We explored the quality of reporting of TB vaccine trials according to the latest version of the CONSORT statement, released in 2010. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in August 2019. We conducted screening, study selection, and data extraction in duplicate; and resolved differences through discussion. We assessed reporting to be adequate if trials reported at least 75% of the CONSORT 2010 items. We conducted a trend analysis to assess if there was improvement in reporting over time. We also used logistic regression to assess factors associated with adequate reporting. We included 124 trials in the analyses. The mean proportion of adherence was 67.3% (95% confidence interval 64.4% to 70.1%), with only 46 (37%) trials having adequate reporting. There was a significant improvement in the quality of reporting over time (p < 0.0001). Trials published in journals with impact factors between 10 and 20 were more likely to have adequate reporting (odds ratio 9.4; 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 67.8), compared to lower-impact-factor journals. Despite advances over time, the reporting of TB vaccine trials is still inadequate and requires improvement.

An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Addiction Medicine Journals

Context

Robust methodology and ethical reporting are paramount for quality scientific research, but recently, that quality in addiction research has been questioned. Avenues to improve such research quality include adherence to reporting guidelines and proper usage of clinical trial registries. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registries have been shown to lead researchers to more ethical and transparent methodology.

Objectives

To investigate the reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies of addiction research journals and identify areas of improvement.

Methods

We used Google Scholar Metrics' h-5 index to identify the top 20 addiction research journals. We then examined the instructions for authors from each journal to identify whether they required, recommended, or made no mention of trial registration and reporting guidelines, including the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Case Reports (CARE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE), Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT), Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), Transparent Reporting of a Multivariate Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. We performed the same analysis regarding requirements for clinical trial registration.

Results

Of the 20 journals included in this study, 10 journals (50%) did not require adherence to any reporting guidelines. Trial registration followed a similar trend; 15 journals (75%) did not mention any form of trial or systematic review registration, and ClinicalTrials.gov was only recommended by only 1 journal (5%).

Conclusions

Among top addiction medicine journals, required adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registry policies remains substandard. A step toward fulfilling the National Institute on Drug Abuses' call for improvement in transparency and reproducibility within addiction research should include all journals adopting a strict reporting guideline and clinical trial registry adherence policy.

Completeness of intervention reporting in neurology randomized controlled trials: a retrospective, cross-sectional study

AIM

Incomplete reporting of interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may hinder the replicability of studies and thus lead to adverse clinical outcomes for patients. Currently, little is known about the completeness of intervention reporting in neurology clinical trials. This study's primary objective was to determine the completeness of intervention reporting in neurology RCTs, as measured by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The secondary objectives of this study were to compare the completeness of intervention reporting before and after TIDieR publication and to evaluate factors associated with intervention reporting.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, pilot-tested, double-blind investigation of 141 neurology RCTs to determine the completeness of intervention reporting in neurology.

RESULTS

Overall, the average number of TIDieR checklist items that reached completion per study was 7.4 out of 12 (61.7%). We found no increase in intervention reporting following the publication of TIDieR (P = 0.35). Our generalized estimating equation analysis found that poorer TIDieR adherence was associated with trials lacking a trial registration (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that on average, authors reported only 61.7% of items on the TIDieR checklist. These findings have significant implications, because incomplete reporting may hinder the replicability of studies and thus negatively affect clinical outcomes for patients.