Conducting a randomized clinical trial of an psychological intervention for parents/caregivers of children with cancer shortly after diagnosis. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Undisclosed changes in outcomes in randomized controlled trials: an observational study. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
To report acceptability, feasibility, and outcome data from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a brief intervention for caregivers of children newly diagnosed with cancer.
                Eighty-one families were randomly assigned following collection of baseline data to Intervention or Treatment as Usual (TAU). Recruitment and retention rates and progression through the protocol were tracked. Measures of state anxiety and posttraumatic stress symptoms served as outcomes.
                Difficulties enrolling participants included a high percentage of newly diagnosed families failing to meet inclusion criteria (40%) and an unexpectedly low participation rate (23%). However, movement through the protocol was generally completed in a timely manner and those completing the intervention provided positive feedback. Outcome data showed no significant differences between the arms of the RCT.
                There are many challenges inherent in conducting a RCT shortly after cancer diagnosis. Consideration of alternative research designs and optimal timing for interventions are essential next steps. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are accepted as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of clinical interventions but are rarely reported in pediatric surgery. Have RCTs submitted to the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) Annual Congress during the last 5 years been adequately designed and large enough to produce a valid result?
                Abstracts accepted by the Annual BAPS Congress meetings between 1996 and 2000 were examined in collaboration with a senior health services researcher. The quality of the design, methodology, statistical analysis and conclusions, and the adequacy of the sample size were assessed for all identifiable clinical RCTs.
                From 760 accepted abstracts, there were only 9 RCTs (1%) of clinical interventions. In only 4 trials was the relevant primary end-point specified at the outset of the study, and none documented the method of randomization. Only one abstract mentioned blinding with respect to the intervention or outcome measure. Sample sizes were inadequate to detect even large clinical differences. To date, only one of these RCTs has been published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal.
                Clear guidelines exist for the conduct of RCTs, yet compliance with these standards was rarely documented in abstracts of pediatric surgical RCTs presented at BAPS. Sample sizes were inadequate. RCTs in pediatric surgery are difficult to perform, but the specialty would benefit from well-designed, carefully conducted, multicentre, clinical RCTs to advance evidence-based practice.
                Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent. The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology.
                Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality.
                We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006.
                We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.
                There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis.
                Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS.
                The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can provide valuable evidence of the efficacy of interventions if they are well-designed, appropriately executed, and adequately reported. Adequate reporting of methodology in surgical RCTs is known to be poor, and adverse-event reporting in surgical research is inconsistent. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a framework to help authors report their findings in a transparent manner. Extensions to the CONSORT statement have been published recently to address deficiencies in adverse-event reporting and in reporting of specific criteria related to nonpharmacologic treatments. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of trial methodology and adverse events in a sample of general surgical RCTs published in high-quality surgical journals using the criteria specified in the CONSORT statements.
                We used impact factor to identify the top three ranked surgical journals in 2004. We then obtained information on all RCTs published in these journals in the 2005 calendar year. We assessed quality of reporting using Jadad score, compared the quality of RCTs from CONSORT-endorsing journals with nonendorsers, and assessed the number of RCTs adequately reporting key generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria.
                Of 42 RCTs analyzed, only 40% (17 of 42) had a Jadad score > or = 3. There was no significant difference in the number of high-quality RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals compared with nonendorsers (p = 0.3). The median percentage of RCTs adequately reporting generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria was 32.5%, 17%, and 36.5%, respectively.
                Quality of reporting of generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria in surgical RCTs is poor. Increased attention to quality of reporting of surgical RCTs is required if studies are to meet published criteria. In order to examine the reporting quality of urological RCTs, the initial objectives of this study were to evaluate the degree to which RCTs involving urological surgical techniques (as the intervention) published in the years 2000-2003 complied with the CONSORT statement, and to assess trends and patterns of compliance. Following our initial findings in urology, we extended the methodology to a number of other specialties to assess whether our findings in urology could be generalised to other surgical disciplines.
                The Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) Library was commissioned to search the Medline and Cochrane databases for RCTs in compliance with the study inclusion criteria below. Additional analyses of five other specialties (non-urological trials: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic, orthopaedic and vascular) were also made. For the non-urological trials, 15 English language trials (from each specialty) were randomly picked from a blast search conducted by the RSM for the year 2003. The RCTs were given a score out of 22, reflecting how many of the 22 CONSORT items were complied with (with each item being given equal weighting), this score was termed the "CONSORT score".
                Urology trials: In total 122 RCT abstracts were identified which met the inclusion criteria for this study. From these, 32 were excluded as they were follow-up studies, involved a virtual procedure or were a cost analysis, leaving 90 RCTs published across 35 different journals which were analysed (68.2%, 90/122). The average score of 11.1 for urological trials indicates that RCTs in our sample do not comply with the CONSORT statement. No trials reported how they implemented their randomisation process. Only 46% of RCTs stated that they had permission from an ethics review board, 20% had declared their sources of funding, 14% stated whether there were any conflicts of interest and only 1.1% stated their trial registry number. For non-urological studies, an average CONSORT score of 11.2 was obtained.
                Clinical research teams conducting RCTs in urology and other surgical disciplines demonstrate poor compliance with the CONSORT statement. We would recommend that trials should be registered at their outset and that urological and other surgical journals to consider supporting the CONSORT statement and to have compliance 'hard-wired' into their submission, editorial and peer-review processes. Since it seems the best researchers are unable to produce an RCT results which enable surgical techniques to be critically assessed, there is a need for education about the CONSORT statement and its importance at all levels of surgical training. We believe that an open debate is needed on the possible role of other research designs, such as tracker studies. Whether this study actually raises the question of how appropriate RCTs are to surgical techniques, we leave to the reader. We wanted to investigate the frequency of undisclosed changes in the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between trial registration and publication.
                Using a retrospective, nonrandom, cross-sectional study design, we investigated RCTs published in consecutive issues of 5 major medical journals during a 6-month period and their associated trials registry entries. Articles were excluded if they did not have an available trial registry entry, did not have analyzable outcomes, or were secondary publications. The primary outcome was the proportion of publications in which the primary outcome of the trial was, without disclosure, changed between that recorded in the trial registry and that reported in the final publication. The secondary outcome was the proportion of publications in which the secondary outcome was changed without disclosure.
                We reviewed 158 reports of RCTs and included 110 in the analysis. In 34 (31%), a primary outcome had been changed, and in 77 (70%), a secondary outcome had been changed.
                There are substantial and important undisclosed changes made to the outcomes of published RCTs between trial registration and publication. This finding has important implications for the interpretation of trial results. Disclosure and discussion of changes would improve transparency in the performance and reporting of trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions provide the highest level of evidence about efficacy but their value either alone or within a meta-analysis is dependent on its methodological quality. For this reason recent RCTs in organ transplantation were assessed for quality. RCTs published between 2004 and 2006 (n = 332) were assessed, after excluding duplicate and nonEnglish reports. Quality was evaluated using the Jadad score plus allocation concealment and intention to treat analysis. We noted journal type, journal author instructions, funding source, sample size and number and location of study centres. Around one-third of RCTs had a Jadad score of 3 or greater (indication of a methodologically good quality trial) and the other two parameters were satisfied in just over one third. Although the majority of trials were published in speciality journals the quality of those published in general journals was superior. Commercially sponsored trials were of better quality as were multicentre trials in contrast to single centre trials. Overall quality of reporting of RCTs in organ transplantation is poor and as RCTs provide the highest level of evidence in evaluations of interventions there needs to be a concerted effort within the transplant community to improve the standards of RCTs. Despite the large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing weight loss interventions, no study has assessed the quality of reporting in these trials.
                To assess the quality of reporting of RCTs of weight loss interventions and to identify predictors of reporting quality.
                The RCTs assessed were derived from a published systematic review of trials investigating the efficacy of weight loss interventions. For our study, two reviewers independently rated the quality of reporting in these trials, based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) Statement. We describe the quality of reporting using number (percent) of studies satisfying each of the 44 CONSORT criteria. We use generalized estimating equations (GEE) to fit a multivariable regression model to determine factors that are associated with the overall quality reporting score.
                We assessed 63 RCTs, of which 25 were dietary-lifestyle trials, 22 were pharmacological trials and 16 were behavior-cognitive, exercise-lifestyle, or surgical trials. Less than half (46%) of the trials defined the primary outcome of the study; about 10% provided the description of the method of allocation concealment. Multivariable GEE results showed that the sample size, type of intervention (non-pharmacologic trials having lower scores than pharmacologic trials), and publication time relative to the CONSORT Statement publication in 1996 (publications after 1996 having higher scores) were strong predictors of the quality reporting score. Reporting a statistically significant result on the primary outcome was not significantly associated with the quality score.
                While the overall quality in reporting seemed to have improved since the publication of the revised CONSORT Statement in 1996, the reporting of some key methodologic aspects, such as clear description of primary outcome and method of allocation concealment, still requires improvements. Factors that are significantly associated with the overall quality reporting score can be used as surrogates in the review of protocols to enhance the quality of the final reports.
This review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.