outcome reporting
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

349
(FIVE YEARS 142)

H-INDEX

29
(FIVE YEARS 6)

Author(s):  
Reem Moussa ◽  
Maria Patricia Rada ◽  
Constantin Durnea ◽  
Gabriele Falconi ◽  
Cornelia Betschart ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Evidence on OAB management remains suboptimal and methodological limitations in randomized control trials (RCTs) affect their comparability. High quality meta-analyses are lacking. This study aimed to compare selection and reporting of outcomes and outcome measures across RCTs as well as evaluate methodological quality and outcome reporting quality as a first stage in the process of developing core outcome sets (COS). Methods RCTs were searched using Pubmed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, ICTRP and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to January 2020, in English language, on adult women. Pharmacological management, interventions, sample size, journal type and commercial funding were documented. Methodological and outcome reporting quality were evaluated using JADAD and MOMENT scores. Results Thirty-eight trials (18,316 women) were included. Sixty-nine outcomes were reported, using 62 outcome measures. The most commonly reported outcome domains were efficacy (86.8%), safety (73.7%) and QoL (60.5%). The most commonly reported outcomes in each domain were urgency urinary incontinence episodes (UUI) (52.6%), antimuscarinic side effects (76.3%) and change in validated questionnaire scores (36.8%). A statistically significant correlation was found between JADAD and MOMENT (Spearman’s rho = 0.548, p < 0.05) scores. This indicates that higher methodological quality is associated with higher outcome reporting quality. Conclusions Development of COS and core outcome measure sets will address variations and lead to higher quality evidence. We recommend the most commonly reported outcomes in each domain, as interim COS. For efficacy we recommend: UUI episodes, urgency and nocturia episodes; for safety: antimuscarinic adverse events, other adverse events and discontinuation rates; for QoL: OAB-q, PPBC and IIQ scores.


Author(s):  
Cían J. Henry ◽  
Gergana Semova ◽  
Ellen Barnes ◽  
Isabel Cotter ◽  
Tara Devers ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The lack of a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and a core outcome set (COS) proves a substantial impediment to research that influences policy and practice relevant to key stakeholders, patients and parents. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In the included studies, the described outcomes were extracted in accordance with the provisions of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and registered. Results Among 884 abstracts identified, 90 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Only 30 manuscripts explicitly stated the primary and/or secondary outcomes. A total of 88 distinct outcomes were recorded across all 90 studies included. These were then assigned to seven different domains in line with the taxonomy for classification proposed by the COMET initiative. The most frequently reported outcome was survival with 74% (n = 67) of the studies reporting an outcome within this domain. Conclusions This systematic review constitutes one of the initial phases in the protocol for developing a COS in neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting in neonatal sepsis hinders comparison and synthesis of data. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to generate a COS in neonatal sepsis by consensus recommendation. Impact This systematic review identified a wide variation of outcomes reported among published RCTs on the management of neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting hinders comparison and synthesis of data and future meta-analyses with conclusive recommendations on the management of neonatal sepsis are unlikely. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to determine a COS by consensus recommendation with input from all relevant stakeholders.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Santyr ◽  
Mohamad Abbass ◽  
Alan Chalil ◽  
Amirti Vivekanandan ◽  
Margaret Lauren Tindale ◽  
...  

Introduction: Chronic facial pain is a prevalent group of conditions and when refractory to common treatments poses a social and economic burden. The last decade has seen a multitude of advancements in the multimodal management of pain. Ablative or neuromodulatory interventions targeting the nucleus caudalis (NC) of the trigeminocervical complex is one such treatment that has remained underutilized. Methods: Here we present a systematic review of the literature and historical perspective regarding interventions targeting the NC. We examine the various intervention techniques, clinical indications, and procedural efficacy. A novel outcome reporting scheme was devised to allow comparison between studies using differing outcome reporting methods. Results: A review of the literature revealed 49 retrospective studies published over the last 80 years, reporting on 858 patients. The most common technique was the open NC dorsal root entry zone nucleotomy/tractotomy (n=515, 60.0%); however, there has been an emergence of novel approaches such as endoscopic (n=6, 0.7%) and spinal cord stimulation (n=20, 2.3%) in the last 10 years. Regardless of intervention technique or preoperative diagnosis, 90.4% of patients demonstrated some improvement from treatment. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights recent advancements in NC intervention technique and the wide range of facial pain syndromes for which these interventions show promising efficacy. New and less invasive techniques continue to emerge, however prospective studies remain absent in the literature. Future work should address efficacy comparisons between intervention type and preoperative diagnosis.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rokaia Ahmed Elagami ◽  
Tamara Kerber Tedesco ◽  
Claudio Mendes Pannuti ◽  
Gabriela Seabra da Silva ◽  
Mariana Minatel Braga ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundSelective outcome reporting (SOR) is a type of bias that occurs when the primary outcome of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is omitted or changed prospectively. We evaluated the prevalence of SOR in RCTs on restorative caries treatment in primary teeth.MethodsWe conducted an electronic search on ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) platform up to April/2021. We included RCT protocols that tested restorative treatments in primary teeth and excluded any protocol that has not resulted in at least one publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The Chi-square test was used to detect the association between SOR and other variables (α = 5%).ResultsOut of 294 potential protocols, thirty were included. We found 34 corresponding publications and had the one that seemed to report the primary outcome and longest follow-up, resulting in 30 publications. SOR was observed in 53.3% (n=16) of the published trials and was significantly associated with the discrepancy in the follow-up period (p=0.017).ConclusionThere is a considerable prevalence of selective outcome reporting (SOR) on restorative trials in primary teeth. Properly pre-registered protocols and assessing them for the peer review processes will help decrease SOR.Practical implicationsRestorative treatment trials in primary teeth that selectively modify outcomes of interest have been shown to distort the treatment effect. Practitioners should avoid using restorative treatments based on misleading results in clinical practice.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Swanson ◽  
James L. Johnston ◽  
Joseph S. Ross

Abstract Background Selective registration, publication, and outcome reporting of clinical trials distort the primary clinical evidence that is available to patients and clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medical devices. The purpose of this study is to compare registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk (class III) cardiovascular devices before and after the FDA Amendment Act (FDAAA) was enacted in 2007. Methods Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA summaries, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all pivotal clinical studies supporting FDA approval of new high-risk cardiovascular devices between 2005 and 2020, before and after FDAAA. For published studies, we compared both the primary efficacy outcome with the FDA’s Premarket Approval (PMA) primary efficacy outcome and the published interpretation of findings with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (positive, equivocal, or negative). Results Between 2005 and 2020, the FDA approved 156 high-risk cardiovascular devices on the basis of 165 pivotal trials, 48 (29%) of which were categorized as pre-FDAAA and 117 (71%) as post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA, pivotal clinical trials were more likely to be registered (115 of 117 (98%) vs 24 of 48 (50%); p < 0.001), to report results (98 of 117 (87%) vs 7 of 48 (15%); p < 0.001) on ClinicalTrials.gov, and to be published (100 or 117 (85%) vs 28 of 48 (58%); p < 0.001) in peer-reviewed literature when compared to pre-FDAAA. Among published trials, rates of concordant primary efficacy outcome reporting were not significantly different between pre-FDAAA trials and post-FDAAA trials (24 of 28 (86%) vs 96 of 100 (96%); p = 0.07), nor were rates of concordant trial interpretation (27 of 28 (96%) vs 93 of 100 (93%); p = 0.44). Conclusions FDAAA was associated with increased registration, result reporting, and publication for trials supporting FDA approval of high-risk medical devices. Among published trials, rates of accurate primary efficacy outcome reporting and trial interpretation were high and no different post-FDAAA.


Author(s):  
Michelle Lancee ◽  
Marleen Schuring ◽  
Joeri K. Tijdink ◽  
An‐Wen Chan ◽  
Christiaan H. Vinkers ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Riemer ◽  
Peter Kranke ◽  
Antonia Helf ◽  
Debora Mayer ◽  
Maria Popp ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the ‘Cochrane Risk of bias’ assessment tool 1.0. Results In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36% (27/75) were pro- and 64% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32%), a new primary outcome (26%), and different outcome assessment times (26%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as ‘overall low risk of bias’ compared to non-registered trials (64% vs 28%). Conclusions In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document