Transparency of Results Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kao J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10413165 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Transparency of Results Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials.
Kao Jennifer J Ross Joseph S JS Miller Jennifer E JE
JAMA network open 20230801 8
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7951952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.MethodsFirst, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes.ResultsWe evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results.ConclusionsOur results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.
| S-EPMC8925077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications.ResultsWe identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items.ConclusionsTransparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.
| S-EPMC9510360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo annotate a corpus of randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications with the checklist items of CONSORT reporting guidelines and using the corpus to develop text mining methods for RCT appraisal.MethodsWe annotated a corpus of 50 RCT articles at the sentence level using 37 fine-grained CONSORT checklist items. A subset (31 articles) was double-annotated and adjudicated, while 19 were annotated by a single annotator and reconciled by another. We calculated inter-annotator agreement at the article and section level using MASI (Measuring Agreement on Set-Valued Items) and at the CONSORT item level using Krippendorff's α. We experimented with two rule-based methods (phrase-based and section header-based) and two supervised learning approaches (support vector machine and BioBERT-based neural network classifiers), for recognizing 17 methodology-related items in the RCT Methods sections.ResultsWe created CONSORT-TM consisting of 10,709 sentences, 4,845 (45%) of which were annotated with 5,246 labels. A median of 28 CONSORT items (out of possible 37) were annotated per article. Agreement was moderate at the article and section levels (average MASI: 0.60 and 0.64, respectively). Agreement varied considerably among individual checklist items (Krippendorff's α= 0.06-0.96). The model based on BioBERT performed best overall for recognizing methodology-related items (micro-precision: 0.82, micro-recall: 0.63, micro-F1: 0.71). Combining models using majority vote and label aggregation further improved precision and recall, respectively.ConclusionOur annotated corpus, CONSORT-TM, contains more fine-grained information than earlier RCT corpora. Low frequency of some CONSORT items made it difficult to train effective text mining models to recognize them. For the items commonly reported, CONSORT-TM can serve as a testbed for text mining methods that assess RCT transparency, rigor, and reliability, and support methods for peer review and authoring assistance. Minor modifications to the annotation scheme and a larger corpus could facilitate improved text mining models. CONSORT-TM is publicly available at https://github.com/kilicogluh/CONSORT-TM.
| S-EPMC8112250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly malignant tumor of the digestive system. As clinical trials involving PC are increasingly being conducted, the transparency of the generated data has become an important issue of concern. In other areas of medicine, clinical trial transparency presents a worrying state of affairs. However, at present, there has been no study examining the transparency of data derived from PC clinical trials.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in the ClinicalTrial.gov database for clinical trials investigating pancreatic cancer as of June 2022. We examined the availability of clinical trial results and recorded the characteristics of the trials.ResultsA total of 856 trials were included in this study, of which 668 were completed and 188 were terminated or suspended. The results of 626 trials (73.13%) were available, of these 230 trials (26.87%) did not disclose any information on the trial data in any form. The publication rate for trials with available results was 86.10%, but the report rate on ClinicalTrial.gov was only 39.78%.ConclusionAlthough approximately 90% of clinical trial investigating interventions on patients with PC have published study results, 30% of trials did not report any findings, and the disclosure of trial results from ClinicalTrial.gov was unsatisfactory. In general, there is still room for improvement in the transparency of PC clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9853913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aims The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act mandates that applicable clinical trials report basic summary results to the ClinicalTrials.gov database within 1 year of trial completion or termination. We aimed to determine the proportion of pulmonary trials reporting basic summary results to ClinicalTrials.gov and assess factors associated with reporting. Methods We identified pulmonary clinical trials subject to the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (called highly likely applicable clinical trials) that were completed or terminated between 2008 and 2012 and reported results by September 2013. We estimated the cumulative percentage of applicable clinical trials reporting results by pulmonary disease category. Multivariable Cox regression modeling identified characteristics independently associated with results reporting. Results Of 1450 pulmonary highly likely applicable clinical trials, 380 (26%) examined respiratory neoplasms, 238 (16%) asthma, 175 (12%) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 657 (45%) other respiratory diseases. Most (75%) were pharmaceutical highly likely applicable clinical trials and 71% were industry-funded. Approximately 15% of highly likely applicable clinical trials reported results within 1 year of trial completion, while 55% reported results over the 5-year study period. Earlier phase highly likely applicable clinical trials were less likely to report results compared to phase 4 highly likely applicable clinical trials (phases 1/2 and 2 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.54)), phases 2/3 and 3 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.55 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.72)) and phase not applicable (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.63)). Pulmonary highly likely applicable clinical trials without Food and Drug Administration oversight were less likely to report results compared with those with oversight (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.83)). Conclusion A total of 15% of pulmonary clinical highly likely applicable clinical trials report basic summary results to ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of trial completion. Strategies to improve reporting are needed within the pulmonary community.
| S-EPMC6007020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using electronic health records (EHRs), including completeness and transparency of reporting assessed against the 2021 CONSORT Extension for RCTs Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria.Study designMEDLINE and Cochrane Methodology Register were searched for a sample of RCTs published from 2011-2018. Completeness of reporting was assessed in a random sample using a pre-defined coding form.ResultsOf the 183 RCT publications identified, 122 (67%) used EHRs to identify eligible participants, 139 (76%) used the EHR as part of the intervention and 137 (75%) to ascertain outcomes. When 60 publications were evaluated against the CONSORT 2010 item and the corresponding extension for the 8 modified items, four items were 'adequately reported' for most trials. Five new reporting items were identified for the CONSORT-ROUTINE extension; when evaluated, one was 'adequately reported', three were reported 'inadequately or not at all', the other 'partially'. There were, however, some encouraging signs with adequate and partial reporting of many important items, including descriptions of trial design, the consent process, outcome ascertainment and interpretation.ConclusionAspects of RCTs using EHRs are sub-optimally reported. Uptake of the CONSORT-ROUTINE Extension may improve reporting.
| S-EPMC8982641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Several cancer therapies have been associated with cardiovascular harm in early-phase clinical trials. However, some cardiovascular harms do not manifest until later-phase trials. To limit interdisease variability, we focused on breast cancer. Thus, we assessed the reporting of cardiovascular safety monitoring and outcomes in phase 2 and 3 contemporary breast cancer clinical trials. Methods and Results We searched Embase and Medline records for phase 2 and 3 breast cancer pharmacotherapy trials. We examined exclusion criterion as a result of cardiovascular conditions, adverse cardiovascular event reporting, and cardiovascular safety assessment through cardiovascular imaging, ECG, troponin, or natriuretic peptides. Fisher's exact test was utilized to compare reporting. Fifty clinical trials were included in our study. Patients were excluded because of cardiovascular conditions in 42 (84%) trials. Heart failure was a frequent exclusion criterion (n=31; 62% trials). Adverse cardiovascular events were reported in 43 (86%) trials. Cardiovascular safety assessments were not reported in 23 (46%) trials, whereas natriuretic peptide and troponin assessments were not reported in any trial. Cardiovascular safety assessments were more frequently reported in industry-funded trials (69.2% versus 0.0%; P<0.001), and in trials administering targeted/immunotherapy agents compared with only hormonal/conventional chemotherapy (78.6% versus 22.7%, P<0.001). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate significant under-representation of patients with cardiovascular conditions or prevalent cardiovascular disease in contemporary later-phase breast cancer trials. Additionally, cardiovascular safety is not routinely monitored in these trials. Therefore, contemporary breast cancer clinical trials may possibly underestimate the cardiovascular risks of cancer pharmacotherapy agents for use in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9375478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConfidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.MethodsEligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013-2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.ResultsOf 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).ConclusionsThe quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.
| S-EPMC4651548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to identify the sources of funding for investigator-initiated clinical trials (IICTs) in Portugal, and to recommend ways to improve the quality of information collected from clinical trial databases about funding.Design and methodsA systematic search of trial registrations over the last 13 years-using the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) and four clinical trials registries (CTRs)-was carried out to identify IICTs in Portugal, used as a case study. Data from the databases were compared with data contained in publications to evaluate the consistency of information on funding sources. The term 'database' is used in this study to refer to both the WHO-ICTRP and the CTRs. When mentioned separately, the WHO-ICTRP is referred to as a 'platform', while the CTRs are referred to as 'registries'.OutcomeSuggestions to improve clinical trials databases to clearly identify the funding sources and data ownership in IICTs.ResultsTwo hundred and eighty-two IICTs were identified in Portugal. Twenty per cent of trials were supported by industry with unclear information on the ownership of the results. Inaccuracy was found in the information about sponsors and funders. The information about funding in all resulting publications (77 out of 133 completed studies) was also inconsistent between databases in 35 out of 77 (45%) of the studies. Notably, 23% of the trials funded by non-profit organisations (n=226) received funds from international and/or national funding agencies.ConclusionsIdentification of IICT funding and ownership of results is unclear in the databases used for this study, which may lead to misunderstandings about the independence of the obtained results. Transparency and accuracy are desirable so that public decision makers and strategic partners can accurately evaluate national performance in this particular type of clinical research.
| S-EPMC6530385 | biostudies-literature