Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Adult Patients with High-Grade Gliomas

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in pharmacotherapy for pituitary adenomas

BACKGROUND

Medical therapy has become an increasingly important intervention owing to improvements in the multidisciplinary care for pituitary adenomas (PAs). This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PAs pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

RCTs evaluating the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in PAs published in English between January 1, 1974, and December 31, 2022, were searched for and collected from PubMed and MEDLINE. The 2010 Consolidated Standards for Test Reports (CONSORT) statement-based 28 items overall quality score (OQS) was used to evaluate the overall quality of each report.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven related RCTs including 1816 patients were retrieved. The median OQS score was 12 (range, 6-19) on a scale of 0 to 28. Important items, such as background, objectives, participants, interventions, and outcomes, were sufficiently reported in 100% (27/27) of the articles. Statistical methods were adequately described in 93% (25/27) of patients. However, RCTs underreported identification as randomized trials in the title (3/27, 11%), sample size, allocation concealment, implementation, ancillary analysis method, and Diagram and Ancillary analyses (1/27, 4%). The OQS of published RCTs has significantly increased since 2010 (P = .012). The multivariate final model showed significant associations between higher OQS and publication since 2010 and enrollment of more than 100 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall reporting quality of RCTs on pharmacotherapy in PAs was poor, based on the 2010 CONSORT statement. However, we noticed an improvement in the OQS over the years and identified the factors associated with a better report. Increased effort is necessary to raise awareness of these issues among writers, readers, reviewers, and editors.

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.

Unsatisfied Reporting Quality of Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Cancer

Background

More and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.

Methods

The PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.

Results

Of the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Immune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

AIM

To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of '1' was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of '0' was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of '0.5' was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, 'Not Applicable (NA)' was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into 'Low' (0-58.4%), 'Moderate' (58.5-72.8%) and 'High' (72.9-100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi-square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance.

RESULTS

Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as 'High', 'Moderate' and 'Low' quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored 'NA' in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of 'High'-quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The 'High'-quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more 'High' scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of 'High' scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non-Endodontic specialty) or year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high-quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines.

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.

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.