An outreach intervention to implement evidence based practice in residential care: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN67855475]. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials: experiences with comprehensive cohort studies. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. A randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to improve the care given in general practice to Type II diabetic patients: patient outcomes and professional ability to change behaviour.
The aim of this project was to assess whether outreach visits would improve the implementation of evidence based clinical practice in the area of falls reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting.
                Twenty facilities took part in a randomized controlled trial with a seven month follow-up period. Two outreach visits were delivered by a pharmacist. At the first a summary of the relevant evidence was provided and at the second detailed audit information was provided about fall rates, psychotropic drug prescribing and stroke risk reduction practices (BP monitoring, aspirin and warfarin use) for the facility relevant to the physician. The effect of the interventions was determined via pre- and post-intervention case note audit. Outcomes included change in percentage patients at risk of falling who fell in a three month period prior to follow-up and changes in use of psychotropic medications. Chi-square tests, independent samples t-test, and logistic regression were used in the analysis.
                Data were available from case notes at baseline (n = 897) and seven months follow-up (n = 902), 452 residential care staff were surveyed and 121 physicians were involved with 61 receiving outreach visits. Pre-and post-intervention data were available for 715 participants. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups for the three month fall rate. We were unable to detect statistically significant differences between groups for the psychotropic drug use of the patients before or after the intervention. The exception was significantly greater use of "as required" antipsychotics in the intervention group compared with the control group after the pharmacy intervention (RR = 4.95; 95%CI 1.69-14.50). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the numbers of patients "at risk of stroke" on aspirin at follow-up.
                While the strategy was well received by the physicians involved, there was no change in prescribing patterns. Patient care in residential settings is complex and involves contributions from the patient's physician, family and residential care staff. The project highlights challenges of delivering evidence based care in a setting in which there is a paucity of well controlled trial evidence but where significant health outcomes can be attained. Large clinical trials are the criterion standard for making treatment decisions, and nonpublication of the results of such trials can lead to bias in the literature and contribute to inappropriate medical decisions.
                To determine the rate of full publication of large randomized trials presented at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), quantify bias against publishing nonsignificant results, and identify factors associated with time to publication.
                Survey of 510 abstracts from large (sample size, > or =200), phase 3, randomized controlled trials presented at ASCO meetings between 1989 and 1998. Trial results were classified as significant (P< or =.05 for the primary outcome measure) or nonsignificant (P>.05 or not reported), and the type of presentation and sponsorship were identified. Subsequent full publication was identified using a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, completed November 1, 2001; the search was updated in November 2002, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Authors were contacted if the searches did not find evidence of publication.
                Publication rate at 5 years; time from presentation to full publication.
                Of 510 randomized trials, 26% were not published in full within 5 years after presentation at the meeting. Eighty-one percent of the studies with significant results had been published by this time compared with 68% of the studies with nonsignificant results (P<.001). Studies with oral or plenary presentation were published sooner than those not presented (P =.002), and studies with pharmaceutical sponsorship were published sooner than studies with cooperative group sponsorship or studies for which sponsorship was not specified (P =.02). These factors remained significant in a multivariable model. The most frequent reason cited by authors for not publishing was lack of time, funds, or other resources.
                A substantial number of large phase 3 trials presented at an international oncology meeting remain unpublished 5 years after presentation. Bias against publishing nonsignificant results is a problem even for large randomized trials. Nonpublication breaks the contract that investigators make with trial participants, funding agencies, and ethics boards. Medical evidence may be biased over time if completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials are delayed when results are not statistically significant.
                To evaluate whether the time to completion and the time to publication of randomized phase 2 and phase 3 trials are affected by the statistical significance of results and to describe the natural history of such trials.
                Prospective cohort of randomized efficacy trials conducted by 2 trialist groups from 1986 to 1996.
                Multicenter trial groups in human immunodeficiency virus infection sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
                A total of 109 efficacy trials (total enrollment, 43708 patients).
                Time from start of enrollment to completion of follow-up and time from completion of follow-up to peer-reviewed publication assessed with survival analysis.
                The median time from start of enrollment to publication was 5.5 years and was substantially longer for negative trials than for results favoring an experimental arm (6.5 vs 4.3 years, respectively; P<.001; hazard ratio for time to publication for positive vs negative trials, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-7.7). This difference was mostly attributable to differences in the time from completion to publication (median, 3.0 vs 1.7 years for negative vs positive trials; P<.001). On average, trials with significant results favoring any arm completed follow-up slightly earlier than trials with nonsignificant results (median, 2.3 vs 2.5 years; P=.045), but long-protracted trials often had low event rates and failed to reach statistical significance, while trials that were terminated early had significant results. Positive trials were submitted for publication significantly more rapidly after completion than were negative trials (median, 1.0 vs 1.6 years; P=.001) and were published more rapidly after submission (median, 0.8 vs 1.1 years; P=.04).
                Among randomized efficacy trials, there is a time lag in the publication of negative findings that occurs mostly after the completion of the trial follow-up. Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.
                To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.
                Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.
                Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.
                One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.
                The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion. Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions.
                To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events.
                Observational study of 370 randomized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews selected from the Cochrane Library, May 2001. From a random sample of 167 Cochrane reviews, 25 contained eligible meta-analyses (assessed a binary outcome; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment). The primary binary outcome from each meta-analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta-analysis. The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect, adverse events, and additional confounding factors (methodological quality, control intervention, sample size, publication year, and place of publication).
                Conclusions in trials, classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not.
                The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16% of trials funded by nonprofit organizations, 30% of trials not reporting funding, 35% of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and 51% of trials funded by for-profit organizations (P<.001; chi2 test). Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding, treatment effect, and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions. Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-14.4) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations. This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events.
                Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data. In conducting reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy, the assessment of trials can be hampered by problems in reporting. Therefore, we set out to evaluate trial reporting by using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommendations.
                Randomized, controlled trials published in 1990 or later were identified in literature searches for reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy. Two independent reviewers evaluated the trial reporting by using a modified 33-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist.
                We identified 15 randomized, controlled trials. Almost half (48%) of the applicable items were reported adequately. Inadequate reporting was found in the following items: outcome measures, sample-size determination, details of the sequence generation, allocation concealment and implementation of the randomization, success of assessor blinding, recruitment and follow-up dates, intention-to-treat analysis, precision of the effect size, co-interventions, and adverse events.
                Only a small number of sufficiently reported trials were found. Because nearly all items had been described in at least 1 article, high-quality reporting seems feasible. Assessment of trials depends on appropriate reporting, and poor reporting jeopardizes judgments on the clinical implications. Authors of randomized, controlled trials are encouraged to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting of trials in this field. In clinical research, randomized trials are widely accepted as the definitive method of evaluating the efficacy of therapies. Random assignment of patients to treatment ensures internal validity of the comparison of new treatments with controls. An assessment of external validity can best be achieved by comparing the randomized study sample to the population of patients who met the eligibility criteria but did not consent to randomization. The Comprehensive Cohort Study (CCS) is designed to recruit all patients fulfilling the clinical eligibility criteria regardless of their consent to randomization. The CCS concept was adopted in the major clinical trials of the German Breast Cancer Study Group (GBSG) conducted between 1983 and 1989. In this period 124 centres recruited 2084 patients in three clinical trials. 734 (35 per cent) of these patients accepted being randomized, while 1350 (65 per cent) chose one of the treatments under study; the randomization rates differed remarkably between trials. In this paper we examine the representativeness of the randomized patients in the three trials. Based on a median follow-up of about 5 years we present results on the external validity of the treatment effects estimated in the randomized patients by means of Cox's proportional hazards model and compare them between trials. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of the CCS design and conclude that its use is only justified under extraordinary circumstances. Reporting of pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored randomised clinical trials often result in biased findings, either due to selective reporting of studies with non-equivalent arms or publication of low-quality papers, wherein unfavourable results are incompletely described. A randomised trial should be conducted only if there is substantial uncertainty about the relative value of one treatment versus another. Studies in which intervention and control are thought to be non-equivalent violates the uncertainty principle.
                We examined the quality of 136 published randomised trials that focused on one disease category (multiple myeloma) and adherence to the uncertainty principle. To evaluate whether the uncertainty principle was upheld, we compared the number of studies favouring experimental treatments over standard ones. We analysed data according to the source of funding.
                Trials funded solely or in part by 35 profit-making organisations had a trend toward higher quality scores (mean 2.94 [SD 1.3]; median 3) than randomised trials supported by 95 governmental or other non-profit organisations (2.4 [0.8]; 2; p=0.06). Overall, the uncertainty principle was upheld, with 44% of randomised trials favouring standard treatments and 56% innovative treatments (p=0.17); mean and median preference evaluation scores were 3.7 (1.0) and 4. However, when the analysis was done according to the source of funding, studies funded by non-profit organisations maintained equipoise favouring new therapies over standard ones (47% vs 53%; p=0.608) to a greater extent than randomised trials supported solely or in part by profit-making organisations (74% vs 26%; p=0.004).
                The reported bias in research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry may be a consequence of violations of the uncertainty principle. Sponsors of clinical trials should be encouraged to report all results and to choose appropriate comparative controls. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of training in a patient-centred intervention for GPs and practice nurses on outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes.
                We carried out a randomized controlled trial within general practices as the basis for randomization and a before-and-after design for measures of patient outcome. A parallel process study examined the use of the method by professionals. The study was carried out in 29 general practices in South Glamorgan who had participated for at least 2 years in a local scheme of audit and CME in relation to Type II diabetes care. The subjects were 252 Type II diabetic patients recruited by 15 experimental and 14 control practices. The main outcome measures were changes in glycosylated haemoglobin, patient satisfaction with care and treatment, functional health status and professional ability to apply the intervention.
                Professionals adopted the innovative method with enthusiasm, but after 2 years only 19% continued to apply the method systematically. The trial was, therefore, unable to demonstrate significant biochemical or functional improvements. This highlights the need to understand the factors associated with professional uptake and subsequent ability to sustain changes in behaviour.
                The efficacy of this behavioural intervention remains unproved, despite its acceptability to professional staff. Detailed and prolonged development and testing of behavioural interventions is an essential first step before embarking on randomized controlled trials which involve complex behavioural changes in professionals or patients.
The inescapable conclusion of this review is the need for further randomised controlled trials. While we recognise that randomisation is considered by some to be unethical or politically unacceptable (both of which are based on the faulty premise that the experimental treatment is superior to the control – this being the point of the trial to begin with), without such evidence, the area will fail to progress. Not only could this result in the continued use of ineffective (and potentially harmful) interventions, but it also means that society is lured into a false sense of security in the belief that once the individual has been treated, their risk of reoffending is reduced. Current available evidence does not support this belief. Future trials should concentrate on minimising risk of bias, maximising quality of reporting and including follow-up for a minimum of five years 'at risk' in the community.