Dataset Information

Reporting of Sociodemographic Data in Cochlear Implant Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients.

Databases reviewed

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify peer reviewed research.

Methods

A systematic review was performed, which included original prospective clinical trial research studies involving cochlear implantation and/or interventional trials involving cochlear implant patients. Collected data included funding type, level of evidence, race reporting, ethnicity reporting, socioeconomic status reporting, education level reporting, type of insurance, geographic location, and gender of patients.

Results

A total of 644 articles were included for review. Gender was the most reported sociodemographic factor (70% of included studies). Reporting of other data among included studies was low: educational level (6%), socioeconomic status (2%), race (1%), ethnicity (1%), insurance status (0.3%), and geography (1%). The odds of reporting gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51), education (OR = 1.81), and geography (OR = 2.72) increased with each subsequent publication date decade; however, this trend was not seen for reporting of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or insurance. The reporting of gender was less likely to be reported in studies with the pediatric participants (OR = 0.62), level II evidence (OR = 0.14), and device programming interventional studies (OR = 0.26).

Conclusion

Reporting of sociodemographic data, other than gender, is low among prospective clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. The lack of reporting of this key data may limit research rigor and generalizability. Clinical researchers are advised to prospectively collect these data to promote equity in cochlear implant research and clinical care.

SUBMITTER: Meinhardt G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9835009 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting of Sociodemographic Data in Cochlear Implant Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Meinhardt Gerek G Sharrer Christine C Perez Nicole N Downes Alexandra A Davidowitz Tess T Schuh Marissa M Robinson Lauren L Lustig Lawrence R LR Bush Matthew M

Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 20221121 2

<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients.<h4>Databases reviewed</h4>A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify p ...[more]

PMID: 36624584

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveEating disorders (EDs) were once conceptualized as primarily affecting affluent, White women, a misconception that informed research and practice for many years. Abundant evidence now discredits this stereotype, but it is unclear if prevailing "evidence-based" treatments have been evaluated in samples representative of the diversity of individuals affected by EDs. Our goal was to evaluate the reporting, inclusion, and analysis of sociodemographic variables in ED psychotherapeutic treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the US through 2020.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of ED psychotherapeutic treatment RCTs in the US and examined the reporting and inclusion of gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status (SES) of enrolled participants, as well as recruitment methods, power analyses, and discussion of limitations and generalizability.ResultsOur search yielded 58 studies meeting inclusion criteria dating back to 1985. Reporting was at times incomplete, absent, or centered on the racial/gender majority group. No studies reported gender diverse participants, and men and people of color were underrepresented generally, with differences noted across diagnoses. A minority of papers considered sociodemographic variables in analyses or acknowledged limitations related to sample characteristics. Some progress was made across the decades, with studies increasingly providing full racial and ethnic data, and more men included over time. Although racial and ethnic diversity improved somewhat, progress appeared to stall in the last decade.DiscussionWe summarize findings, consider context and challenges for RCT researchers, and offer suggestions for researchers, journal editors, and reviewers on improving representation, reporting, and analytic practices.Public significanceRandomized controlled trials of eating disorder psychotherapeutic treatment in the US are increasingly reporting full race/ethnicity data, but information on SES is inconsistent and sexual orientation absent. White women still comprise the overwhelming majority of participants, with few men and people of color, and no gender-diverse individuals. Findings underscore the need to improve reporting and increase representation to ensure evidence-based treatments are effective across and within diverse groups.

Project description:Objectives: Improved perception of environmental sounds (PES) is one of the primary benefits of cochlear implantation (CI). However, past research contains mixed findings on PES ability in contemporary CI users, which at times contrast with anecdotal clinical reports. The present review examined extant PES research to provide an evidence basis for clinical counseling, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest directions for future work in this area of CI outcome assessment. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched using medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords broadly identified to reference CI and environmental sounds. Records published between 2000 and 2021 were screened by two independent reviewers in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data were subsequently extracted and evaluated according to synthesis without-meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most examined PES in post-lingually implanted adults, with one study focused on pre/perilingual adults. Environmental sound identification (ESI) in quiet using open- or closed-set response format was most commonly used in PES assessment, included in all selected studies. ESI accuracy in CI children (3 studies) and adults (16 studies), was highly variable but generally mediocre (means range: 31-87%). Only two studies evaluated ESI performance prospectively before and after CI, while most studies were cross-sectional. Overall, CI performance was consistently lower than that of normal-hearing peers. No significant differences in identification accuracy were reported between CI candidates and CI users. Environmental sound identification correlated in CI users with measures of speech perception, music and spectro-temporal processing. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate considerable limitations in the current knowledge of PES in contemporary CI users, especially in pre/perilingual late-implanted adults and children. Although no overall improvement in PES following implantation was found, large individual variability and existing methodological limitations in PES assessment may potentially obscure potential CI benefits for PES. Further research in this ecologically relevant area of assessment is needed to establish a stronger evidence basis, identify CI users with significant deficits, and improve CI users' safety and satisfaction through targeted PES rehabilitation.

Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.

Project description:BackgroundMost publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If analyses are selected on the basis of the results, reporting bias may occur. The aims of this study were to review and summarise the evidence from empirical cohort studies that assessed discrepant or selective reporting of analyses in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Methods and findingsA systematic review was conducted and included cohort studies that assessed any aspect of the reporting of analyses of RCTs by comparing different trial documents, e.g., protocol compared to trial report, or different sections within a trial publication. The Cochrane Methodology Register, Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), and PubMed were searched on 5 February 2014. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Twenty-two studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) published between 2000 and 2013 were included. Twenty-two studies reported on discrepancies between information given in different sources. Discrepancies were found in statistical analyses (eight studies), composite outcomes (one study), the handling of missing data (three studies), unadjusted versus adjusted analyses (three studies), handling of continuous data (three studies), and subgroup analyses (12 studies). Discrepancy rates varied, ranging from 7% (3/42) to 88% (7/8) in statistical analyses, 46% (36/79) to 82% (23/28) in adjusted versus unadjusted analyses, and 61% (11/18) to 100% (25/25) in subgroup analyses. This review is limited in that none of the included studies investigated the evidence for bias resulting from selective reporting of analyses. It was not possible to combine studies to provide overall summary estimates, and so the results of studies are discussed narratively.ConclusionsDiscrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documentation were common, but reasons for these discrepancies were not discussed in the trial reports. To ensure transparency, protocols and statistical analysis plans need to be published, and investigators should adhere to these or explain discrepancies.

Dataset Information

Reporting of Sociodemographic Data in Cochlear Implant Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Objective

Databases reviewed

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Reporting of Sociodemographic Data in Cochlear Implant Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets