Assessing the degree to which randomized control trials align with the core outcome set for osteoarthritis of knee and hip: A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the degree of core outcome set alignment and identify issues with alignment to the 2019 COS among clinical trial registrations focused on knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Our search was performed on registered knee and hip OA randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available on ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The screening process considered trials registered between 8/2014 and 6/2023. We extracted data on general trial characteristics and the five trial endpoints detailed in the COS (pain, physical function, quality of life, patient global assessment, and adverse events), in a masked and duplicate manner. The frequencies of COS alignment were assessed over time prior to and after COS publication.

RESULTS

Of the 10,718 RCTs screened, 481 met inclusion criteria. Most were phase 3 (368/481, 76.51%) and heavily university-funded (184/481, 38.25%). Despite the 2019 COS, no marked enhancement in overall alignment was noted. The outcome 'Pain' exhibited the highest degree of COS alignment (455/481, 94.59%), whereas 'adverse events' lagged behind (89/481, 18.50%). Additionally, trial factors such as 'Continent', 'Funding Type', and 'Recruitment Status' displayed no significant influence on COS alignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the acknowledged advantages of using COS in RCTs and the availability of an updated COS, the alignment to these outcomes remains notably low. Significant efforts are needed to encourage broader adoption in future studies on knee and hip OA, with the aim of improving research quality and patient care.

The need for a new keyword - "Trial registry-metaresearch" - to track certain uses of clinical trial registry records

Public clinical trial registries contain a large amount of information about a large number of trials. Academic researchers have conducted various analyses using such data. However, some of these studies do not concern the medical condition or intervention that is the focus of each trial. We list examples of publications that have performed such analyses. Currently, there is no keyword to track relevant publications. Here, we propose a novel keyword, "Trial registry-metaresearch", that could be used in such publications. This would be a great help to researchers who wish to more systematically search the literature for such metaresearch.

Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology

OBJECTIVE

Validity of systematic reviews may be affected by non-publication of statistically non-significant or unfavorable clinical trial results. One function of clinical trial registries is to make these non-published studies available and thereby reduce potential publication bias. We aim to assess the use of clinical trial registries in published systematic reviews in urology.

METHODS

We identified all systematic reviews published in the five highest-impact general urology journals that publish original research between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Full-text analysis was performed to determine if protocols included searching clinical trial registries meeting WHO Registry Network criteria.

RESULTS

Of a total of 204 search results, 92 were included in the analysis as systematic reviews. The majority searched the MEDLINE (91, 98%), EMBASE (69, 75%), and Cochrane (49, 53%) databases. Based on published methods, only 16 (17%) systematic reviews searched any clinical trial registries: 14 (15%) ClinicalTrials.gov, 6 (6%) WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and 2 (2%) ISRCTN registry. Rates of searching clinical trial registries were low regardless of the journal: 8 of 34 (24%) in European Urology; 2 of 10 (20%) in BJU International; 3 of 17 (18%) in Urology; 2 of 18 (11%) in The Journal of Urology; and 1 of 13 (8%) in World Journal of Urology.

CONCLUSION

The majority of recently published systematic reviews in urology do not routinely search clinical trial registries. Inclusion of these registries can help identify unpublished trial data, which may improve the quality of systematic reviews by reducing publication bias.

The risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates can be estimated by learning from a database of published examples

OBJECTIVES

To determine which systematic review characteristics are needed to estimate the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We applied classification trees (a machine learning method) to model the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, using pairs of systematic reviews and their updates as samples. The classifiers were constructed using a set of features extracted from systematic reviews and the relevant trials added in published updates. Model performance was measured by recall, precision, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

We identified 63 pairs of systematic reviews and updates, of which 20 (32%) exhibited a change in conclusion in their updates. A classifier using information about new trials exhibited the highest performance (AUC: 0.71; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.43) compared to a classifier that used fewer features (AUC: 0.65; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.39).

CONCLUSION

When estimating the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, information about the sizes of trials that will be added in an update are most useful. Future tools aimed at signaling conclusion change risks would benefit from complementary tools that automate screening of relevant trials.

Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence

BACKGROUND

A number of methods for deciding when a systematic review should be updated have been proposed, yet little is known about whether systematic reviews are updated more quickly when new evidence becomes available. Our aim was to examine the timing of systematic review updates relative to the availability of new evidence.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the update timing of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2010 relative to the availability of new trial evidence. We compared the update timing of systematic reviews with and without signals defined by the completion or publication of studies that were included in the updates.

RESULTS

We found 43% (293/682) systematic reviews were updated before June 2017, of which 204 included an updated primary outcome meta-analysis (median update time 35.4 months; IQR 25.5-54.0), 38% (77/204) added new trials, and 4% (8/204) reported a change in conclusion. In the 171 systematic reviews with reconcilable trial reporting information, we did not find a clear difference in update timing (p = 0.05) between the 15 systematic reviews with a publication signal (median 25.3 months; IQR 15.3-43.5) and the 156 systematic reviews without a publication signal (median 34.4 months; IQR 25.1-52.2). In the 145 systematic reviews with reconcilable trial completion information, we did not find a difference in update timing (p = 0.33) between the 15 systematic reviews with a trial completion signal (median 26.0 months; IQR 19.3-49.5) and the 130 systematic reviews without a trial completion signal (median 32.4 months; IQR 24.1 to 46.0).

CONCLUSION

A minority of 2010 Cochrane reviews were updated before June 2017 to incorporate evidence from new primary studies, and very few updates led to a change in conclusion. We did not find clear evidence that updates were undertaken faster when new evidence was made available. New approaches for finding early signals that a systematic review conclusion is at risk of change may be useful in allocated resources to the updating of systematic reviews.

An audit to evaluate an institute's lead researchers' knowledge of trial registries and to investigate adherence to data transparency issues in an Italian research institute registry

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial registries have been a priority topic in the past few years in promoting data transparency and accountability. In this context, in 2011, the IRCCS - Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche "Mario Negri" set up a registry to collect data on all studies in which the institute's researchers are involved. In this study we present a self-audit in order to detect the lead researchers' general knowledge on registries, the completeness and quality of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) data inputted in an Italian research institute's registry, and the researchers' adherence to both registration requirements and the institute transparency goal, aiming to improve standards and leading to greater awareness of the issues involved.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based audit was conducted. To interview researchers we included questions ranging from general knowledge on registries (e.g., what are the aims of registries?) to questions about their knowledge of the Mario Negri's registry, questions on selected trials and registration, included information on the protocol, and the results.

RESULTS

The audit sample covers 12 of the 47 RCTs at the institute's Milan branch, representing all the possible lead researchers responsible for RCTs at the institute. The researchers have more than a basic knowledge of trial registries and their aims. All the researchers reported that they know of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and most of them reported that they frequently use it; however, only a few know about the World Health Organization's registry platform (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). The most cited registry aims reported were increased transparency and reduced publication bias. Of the studies registered in the institute's registry, 92% had at least one data item missing in the registry record. Concerning trial registration in the international registries, all 12 respondents said their trial had been registered and specified the registry name, but often they had not inputted the associated trial ID code in the corresponding field of the institute's registry. Concerning two important issues on data transparency and ethical standards, namely registration timing and result reporting, 11 stated that their trial was registered before starting recruitment, and for five of six closed trials they stated that their results have been already published-for one trial within 1 year after its completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should guarantee correct reporting of trials and their data as a rule of great ethical value. Institutional self-audits should be performed periodically in order to improve clinical trial disclosure.

Major discrepancies between what clinical trial registries record and paediatric randomised controlled trials publish

BACKGROUND

Whether information from clinical trial registries (CTRs) and published randomised controlled trial (RCTs) differs remains unknown. Knowing more about discrepancies should alert those who rely on RCTs for medical decision-making to possible dissemination or reporting bias. To provide help in critically appraising research relevant for clinical practice we sought possible discrepancies between what CTRs record and paediatric RCTs actually publish. For this purpose, after identifying six reporting domains including funding, design, and outcomes, we collected data from 20 consecutive RCTs published in a widely read peer-reviewed paediatric journal and cross-checked reported features with those in the corresponding CTRs.

METHODS

We collected data for 20 unselected, consecutive paediatric RCTs published in a widely read peer-reviewed journal from July to November 2013. To assess discrepancies, two reviewers identified and scored six reporting domains: funding and conflict of interests; sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria or crossover; primary and secondary outcomes, early study completion, and main outcome reporting. After applying the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, five reviewer pairs cross-checked CTRs and matching RCTs, then mapped and coded the reporting domains and scored combined discrepancy as low, medium and high.

RESULTS

The 20 RCTs were registered in five different CTRs. Even though the 20 RCTs fulfilled the CASP general criteria for assessing internal validity, 19 clinical trials had medium or high combined discrepancy scores for what the 20 RCTs reported and the matched five CTRs stated. All 20 RCTs selectively reported or failed to report main outcomes, 9 had discrepancies in declaring sponsorship, 8 discrepancies in the sample size, 9 failed to respect inclusion or exclusion criteria, 11 downgraded or modified primary outcome or upgraded secondary outcomes, and 13 completed early without justification. The CTRs for seven trials failed to index automatically the URL address or the RCT reference, and for 12 recorded RCT details, but the authors failed to report the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Major discrepancies between what CTRs record and paediatric RCTs publish raise concern about what clinical trials conclude. Our findings should make clinicians, who rely on RCT results for medical decision-making, aware of dissemination or reporting bias. Trialists need to bring CTR data and reported protocols into line with published data.

Timing of pivotal clinical trial results reporting for newly approved medications varied by reporting source

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to characterize the public availability of pivotal clinical trial results for newly approved drugs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined the availability of pivotal clinical trial results for new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the US Food and Drug administration (FDA) from 2009 to 2013. For each NME, we quantified the time from approval date until results were available on the FDA web site, in the ClinicalTrials.gov basic results database, and in a medical journal.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five pivotal trials supporting 88 NMEs met our criteria. The median time until pivotal trial results were available on the FDA web site, ClinicalTrials.gov, and in a publication was 42 days, 27 days, and -28 days, respectively. In the first 30 days after approval, 52% of pivotal trials were summarized in ClinicalTrials.gov, 20% were posted to the FDA web site, and 46% were published in a journal. Across all sources, 79% of pivotal trials had results available within 30 days of approval. From 2009 to 2013, the average time until public availability has improved for federal sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Pivotal trials of newly approved drugs appeared first in publications. Results from most pivotal trials were publicly available in some source within 30 days of approval.

Beyond PubMed: Searching the "Grey Literature" for Clinical Trial Results

Clinical trial results have been traditionally communicated through the publication of scholarly reports and reviews in biomedical journals. However, this dissemination of information can be delayed or incomplete, making it difficult to appraise new treatments, or in the case of missing data, evaluate older interventions. Going beyond the routine search of PubMed, it is possible to discover additional information in the "grey literature." Examples of the grey literature include clinical trial registries, patent databases, company and industrywide repositories, regulatory agency digital archives, abstracts of paper and poster presentations on meeting/congress websites, industry investor reports and press releases, and institutional and personal websites.

RReACT goes global: perils and pitfalls of constructing a global open-access database of registered analgesic clinical trials and trial results

Eliminating publication bias requires ensuring public awareness of studies and access to results. Clinical trial registries provide basic trial information, but access to unbiased trial results is inadequate. Nearly all studies of trial registration and results reporting have been limited to the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. We analyzed trial registration, registry functionality, cross-registry harmonization, and results reporting on all 15 primary registries in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and fibromyalgia. A total of 447 unique trials were identified, with 86 trials listed on more than one registry. A comprehensive search algorithm was used to find trial results in the peer-reviewed literature and the grey literature. Creating a global database of registered trials and trial results proved surprisingly difficult for several reasons: (1) ICTRP does not reliably identify trials listed on multiple registries, manual searches are necessary; (2) Searching ICTRP yields different results than searching individual registries; (3) Outcome measure descriptions for multiply registered trials vary between registries; (4) Registry-publication pairings are often inaccurate or incomplete; (5) Grey literature results are not permanent. Overall, only 46% of all trials had results available. Trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov were significantly more likely to have results (52% vs. 18%, P<0.001), partly due to the ability to post results directly to the registry. In addition to the simple remedy of including trial registration numbers on all meeting abstracts and peer-reviewed papers, specific strategies are offered to facilitate identifying multiply registered studies and ensuring accurate pairing of results and publications.