Dataset Information

Completeness of intervention description in invasive cardiology trials: an observational study of ClinicalTrials.gov registry and corresponding publications.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Non-pharmacological invasive interventions in cardiology are complex and often inadequately reported. Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide were developed to aid reporting and assessment of non-pharmacological interventions. The aim of our study was to assess the completeness of describing invasive cardiology interventions in clinical trials at the level of trial registration and corresponding journal article publication.

Methodology

We searched for clinical trials in invasive cardiology registered in Clinicaltrials.gov and corresponding journal publications. We used the 10-item TIDieR checklist for registries and 12-item checklist for journal publications.

Results

Out of 7,017 registry items retrieved by our search, 301 items were included in the analysis. The search for corresponding published articles yielded 192 journal publications. The majority of trials were funded by the industry and were medical device trials. The median number of reported TIDieR items was 4.5 (95% CI 4.49-4.51) out of 10, and while the corresponding journal articles reported 6.5 (95% CI 6.0-6.5) out of 12 TIDieR items.

Conclusion

Registration and reporting of invasive cardiology trials is often incomplete and adequate detailed description of the interventions is not provided. TIDieR checklist is an important tool which should be used to ensure rigorous reporting of non-pharmacological interventions in cardiology.

SUBMITTER: Lisnic V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10597631 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Completeness of intervention description in invasive cardiology trials: an observational study of <i>ClinicalTrials.gov</i> registry and corresponding publications.

Lišnić Viktoria V Ashraf Hishaam H Viđak Marin M Marušić Ana A

Frontiers in medicine 20231010

<h4>Introduction</h4>Non-pharmacological invasive interventions in cardiology are complex and often inadequately reported. Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide were developed to aid reporting and assessment of non-pharmacological interventions. The aim of our study was to assess the completeness of describing invasive cardiology interventions in clinical trials at the level of trial registration and corresponding journal article publication.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 37881632

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and is commonly managed with pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and procedural interventions. However, adverse event (AE) reporting for these therapies often lacks transparency, raising concerns about the accuracy of safety data. This study aimed to quantify inconsistencies in AE reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive safety reporting to improve clinical decision-making and patient care.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed Phase 2-4 CBP RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2009 to 2023. Extracted data included AE reporting, trial sponsorship, and discrepancies in serious adverse events (SAEs), other adverse events (OAEs), mortality, and treatment-related withdrawals between registry entries and publications. Statistical analyses assessed reporting inconsistencies, following STROBE guidelines.ResultsA total of 114 registered trials were identified, with 40 (35.1%) corresponding publications. Among these, 67.5% were industry-sponsored. Only 4 (10%) publications fully reported adverse events (AEs) without discrepancies, while 36 (90%) contained at least one inconsistency compared to ClinicalTrials.gov. Discontinuation due to AEs was explicitly reported in 24 (60%) of ClinicalTrials.gov entries and in 30 (75%) of publications, with discrepancies in 16 trials (40%). Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported differently in 15 (37.5%) publications; 80% reported fewer SAEs than ClinicalTrials.gov. Other adverse events (OAEs) showed discrepancies in 37 (92.5%) publications, with 43.2% reporting fewer and 54.1% reporting more OAEs.DiscussionThis study highlights pervasive discrepancies in AE reporting for CBP trials, undermining the reliability of published safety data. Inconsistent reporting poses risks to clinical decision-making and patient safety. Adopting standardized reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT Harms, and ensuring transparent updates in publications could enhance the accuracy and trustworthiness of safety data. Journals and regulatory bodies should enforce compliance and future efforts should develop mechanisms to monitor and correct reporting inconsistencies, enhancing the trustworthiness of safety data in clinical research.

Project description:Objectives: We aimed to study the prevalence of selective reporting of primary and secondary outcomes in tinnitus trials and to examine if selective reporting of outcome measures is influenced by the nature and direction of its results. Background: Selective reporting of outcome measures has been reported in several biomedical fields and can influence the clinical usefulness and implementation of outcomes of clinical trials. It is reported as one of the obstacles in finding an effective intervention for tinnitus. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) was used to identify all registered interventional tinnitus trials up to December 2015. A standardized search was used to find corresponding publications up to March 2018. The prespecified outcomes in CT.gov were compared with the outcomes reported in corresponding publication(s). The effects of the (lack of) statistical significance of trial results and the effects of funding source on record adherence were evaluated. Changes in registration elements were assessed with the Archive site of CT.gov. Results: We found corresponding publications for 60 (64.5%) of 93 eligible tinnitus trials registered in CT.gov. Of all the publications, five (7.5%) fully reported outcome measures entirely in line with the prespecified outcome measures. Discrepancies between the prespecified and reported outcomes were found in a total of 51 (76.1%) of the studies for primary outcomes, whereas 62 (92.5%) of the studies had discrepancies in secondary outcomes. In secondary outcomes, statistical significance of trial results influenced CT.gov record adherence. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of discrepancy in industry-funded [n = 98 (87.5%) discrepant outcomes] and non-industry funded trials [n = 172 (74.5%) discrepant outcomes] (p = 0.01). Finally, 15 (25.9%) trialists made modifications in registered outcome measures during or after the trial period. Conclusion: Tinnitus trials suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias. Awareness of its presence must be raised to limit the obstacles of finding an effective intervention for tinnitus.

Project description:Aim: To evaluate the completeness of the description of nonsurgical periodontal therapy interventions in clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and correspondence of registered information for trial participants and outcome measures with published articles. Materials & methods: We retrieved data from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications. The completeness of intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist for oral hygiene instructions (OHI), professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR), and subgingival instrumentation, antiseptics and antibiotics. The completeness of registration of trial protocol information was assessed according to the WHO Trial Registration DataSet for participant information (enrollment, sample size calculation, age, gender, condition) and primary/secondary outcome measures. Results: 79 included trials involved OHI (n = 38 trials, 48.1%), PMPR (n = 19, 24.1%), antiseptics (n = 11, 12.7%), or antibiotics (n = 11, 12.7%). There was a great variety in the terms used to describe these interventions. Most of the analyzed trials (93.7%) were completed and did not provide any data on study phase (74.7%). The description of intervention in the registry in ClinicalTrials.gov was inadequate for all analyzed interventions, with description inconsistencies in matching publications. There were also discrepancies in registered and published outcomes: for 39 trials with published results, 18 had different registered and reported primary outcomes, and 29 different registered and reported secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The completeness of the description of nonsurgical therapy of periodontitis in clinical trials is unsatisfactory, reducing the quality of translation of the new evidence and procedures into clinical practice. Significant discrepancy in registered and reported trial outcomes calls into question the validity of reported results and relevance for practice.