Dataset Information

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine whether primary reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in six high-impact, general medical journals reported (1) whether or not a Data Monitoring Committee/Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DMC/DSMB) was used and (2) the composition of the responsibilities of the reported DSMB/DMCs.

Study design and setting

Systematic review of RCTs published in 2014 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Lancet.

Results

Of the 294 articles identified, 174 (59%) mentioned using a DMC/DSMB. Of these 174, 126 (72%) indicated at least one responsibility of the DMC/DSMB, 26% listed the names of the DMC/DSMB members, and another 14% listed both their names and affiliations. Only one article stated that a DSMB was not used. The remaining 119 articles did not report whether or not a DMC/DSMB was used, although 59 had previously stated in a clinical trials registry entry or a published protocol that a DMC/DSMB was to be used.

Conclusions

Considering the major role that DMC/DSMBs play in protecting participant safety, data quality, and interim analyses in RCTs, we recommend that authors of publications of RCTs report whether a DMC/DSMB was used and the responsibilities and members of DMC/DSMBs to increase transparency regarding study conduct.

SUBMITTER: Gewandter JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5780643 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

Gewandter Jennifer S JS Kitt Rachel A RA Hunsinger Matthew R MR Poku Joseph J Lozano Jacqueline J Chaudari Jenna J Evans Scott S Gross Robert A RA McDermott Michael P MP Rowbotham Michael C MC Turk Dennis C DC Dworkin Robert H RH

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20170123

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether primary reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in six high-impact, general medical journals reported (1) whether or not a Data Monitoring Committee/Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DMC/DSMB) was used and (2) the composition of the responsibilities of the reported DSMB/DMCs.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>Systematic review of RCTs published in 2014 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Lancet.<h4>Results</h4>Of th ...[more]

PMID: 28126598

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.Objective/designWe conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.Data sources(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work. ELIGIBILITY: (1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.Results(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."ConclusionExisting reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

Project description:BackgroundFor a randomized trial, the primary publication is usually the one which reports the results of the primary outcome and provides consolidated data from all study centers. Other aspects of a randomized trial's findings (that is, non-primary results) are often reported in subsequent publications.MethodsWe carried out a cross-sectional review of the characteristics and type of information reported in non-primary reports (n = 69) of randomized trials (indexed in PubMed core clinical journals in 2009) and whether they report pre-specified or exploratory analyses. We also compared consistency of information in non-primary publications with that reported in the primary publication.ResultsThe majority (n = 56; 81%) of non-primary publications were large, multicenter trials, published in specialty journals. Most reported subgroup analyses (n = 27; 39%), analyzing a specific subgroup of patients from the randomized trial, or reported on secondary outcomes (n = 29; 42%); 19% (n = 13) reported extended follow-up. Less than half reported details of trial registration (n = 30; 43%) or the trial protocol (n = 27; 39%) and in 41% (n = 28) it was unclear from reading the abstract that the report was not the primary publication for the trial. Non-primary publications often analyzed and reported multiple different outcomes (16% reported >20 outcomes) and in 10% (n = 7) it was unclear how many outcomes had actually been assessed; in 42% (n = 29) it was unclear whether the analyses reported were pre-specified or exploratory. Only 39% (n = 27) of non-primary publications described the primary outcome of the randomized trial, 6% (n = 4) reported its numerical results and 9% (n = 6) details of how participants were randomized.ConclusionNon-primary publications often lack important information about the randomized trial and the type of analyses conducted and whether these were pre-specified or exploratory to enable readers to accurately identify and assess the validity and reliably of the study findings. We provide recommendations for what information authors should include in non-primary reports of randomized trials.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to correctly assess the effect of intervention from stratified cluster randomized trials (CRTs), it is necessary to adjust for both clustering and stratification, as failure to do so leads to misleading conclusions about the intervention effect. We have conducted a systematic survey to examine the current practices about analysis and reporting of stratified CRTs.MethodWe used the search terms to identify the stratified CRTs from MEDLINE since the inception to July 2019. In phase 1, we screened the title and abstract for English-only studies and selected, including the main results paper of the identified protocols, for the next phase. In phase 2, we screened the full text and selected studies for data abstraction. The data abstraction form was piloted and developed using the REDCap. We abstracted data on multiple design and methodological aspects of the study including whether the primary method adjusted for both clustering and stratification, reporting of sample size, randomization, and results.ResultsWe screened 2686 studies in the phase 1 and selected 286 studies for phase 2-among them 185 studies were selected for data abstraction. Most of the selected studies were two-arm 140/185 (76%) and parallel-group 165/185 (89%) trials. Among these 185 studies, 27 (15%) of them did not provide any sample size or power calculation, while 105 (57%) studies did not mention any method used for randomization within each stratum. Further, 43 (23%) and 150 (81%) of 185 studies did not provide the definition of all the strata, while more than 60% of the studies did not include all the stratification variable(s) in the flow chart or baseline characteristics table. More than half 114/185 (62%) of the studies did not adjust the primary method for both clustering and stratification.ConclusionStratification helps to achieve the balance among intervention groups. However, to correctly assess the intervention effect from stratified CRTs, it is important to adjust the primary analysis for both stratification and clustering. There are significant deficiencies in the reporting of methodological aspects of stratified CRTs, which require substantial improvements in several areas including definition of strata, inclusion of stratification variable(s) in the flow chart or baseline characteristics table, and reporting the stratum-specific number of clusters and individuals in the intervention groups.

Dataset Information

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

Objective

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets