Dataset Information

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Although the frequency of noninferiority trials is increasing, the consistency of the reporting of these trials can vary. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting quality of radiation therapy noninferiority trials.

Methods and materials

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for randomized controlled radiation therapy trials with noninferiority hypotheses published in English between January 2000 and July 2022, and this was performed by an information scientist. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

Results

Of 423 records screened, 59 (14%) were included after full-text review. All were published after 2003 and open label. The most common primary cancer type was breast (n = 15, 25%). Altered radiation fractionation (n = 26, 45%) and radiation de-escalation (n = 11, 19%) were the most common types of interventions. The most common primary endpoints were locoregional control (n = 17, 29%) and progression-free survival (n = 14, 24%). Fifty-three (90%) reported the noninferiority margin, and only 9 (17%) provided statistical justification for the margin. The median absolute noninferiority margin was 9% (interquartile range, 5%-10%), and the median relative margin was 1.51 (interquartile range, 1.33-2.04). Sample size calculations and confidence intervals were reported in 54 studies (92%). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were reported in 27 studies (46%). In 31 trials (53%), noninferiority of the primary endpoint was reached.

Conclusions

There was variability in the reporting of key components of noninferiority trials. We encourage consideration of additional statistical reasoning such as guidelines or previous trials in the selection of the noninferiority margin, reporting both absolute and relative margins, and the avoidance of statistically vague or misleading language in the reporting of future noninferiority trials.

SUBMITTER: Arifin AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9958349 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review.

Arifin Andrew J AJ Tan Vivian S VS Yan Michael M Warner Andrew A Boldt R G RG Chen Hanbo H Rodrigues George B GB Palma David A DA Louie Alexander V AV

Advances in radiation oncology 20230121 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>Although the frequency of noninferiority trials is increasing, the consistency of the reporting of these trials can vary. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting quality of radiation therapy noninferiority trials.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for randomized controlled radiation therapy trials with noninferiority hypotheses published in English between January 2000 and July 2022, and this was performed b ...[more]

PMID: 36852015

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSpin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.ObjectiveTo examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.Data sourcesA systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.Study selectionTwo investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.Data extraction and synthesisStandardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.ResultsThe analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

Project description:BackgroundStandards for reporting clinical trials have improved the transparency of patient-important research. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) published an extension to address noninferiority and equivalence trials. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of prostaglandin noninferiority and equivalence trials in the treatment of glaucoma.MethodsWe searched, independently and in duplicate, 6 electronic databases for eligible trials evaluating prostaglandins. We abstracted data on reporting of methodological criteria, including reporting of per-protocol [PP] and intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis, sample size estimation with margins, type of statistical analysis conducted, efficacy summaries, and use of hyperemia measures.ResultsTrials involving the four major prostaglandin groups (latanoprost, travoprost, bimatoprost, unoprostone) were analyzed. We included 36 noninferiority and 11 equivalence trials. Seventeen out of the included 47 trials (36%, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 24-51) were crossover designs. Only 3 studies (6%, 95% CI: 2-17) reported a presented results of both ITT and PP populations. Twelve studies (26%, 95% CI: 15-39) presented only ITT results but mentioned that PP population had similar results. Thirteen trials (28%, 95% CI: 17-42) presented only PP results with no mention of ITT population results while 17 studies (36%, 95% CI: 24-51) presented only ITT results with no mention of PP population results. Thirty-four (72%, 95% CI: 58-83) of studies adequately described their margin of noninferiority/equivalence. Sequence generation was reported in 22/47 trials (47%, 95% CI: 33-61). Allocation concealment was reported in only 10/47 (21%, 95% CI: 12-35) of the trials. Thirty-five studies (74%, 95% CI: 60-85) employed masking of at least two groups, 4/47 (9%, 95% CI: 3-20) masked only patients and 8/47 (17%, 95% CI: 9-30) were open label studies. Eight (17%, 95% CI: 9-30) of the 47 trials employed a combined test of noninferiority and superiority. We also found 6 differing methods of evaluating hyperemia.ConclusionThe quality of reporting noninferiority/equivalency trials in the field of glaucoma is markedly heterogeneous. The adoption of the extended CONSORT statement by journals will potentially improve the transparency of this field.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020.Review methodsIntervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications.Results22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range -0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger's test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial.ConclusionsThe results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.

Project description:BackgroundPsychedelic-assisted therapy has gained significant attention in recent years. However, there is a lack of empirical clarity on the role of psychosocial interventions (PIs) in clinical trials of psychedelic treatment due in part to deficiencies in reporting practices found in the existing literature. These PI include non-drug support or interventions provided by psychotherapists or facilitators during all phases of treatment, sometimes called "psychological support," "monitoring," "psychedelic-assisted therapy," or "psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy." A brief review of recent research, historical studies, safety considerations, and participant perspectives suggests that PI has a substantive and critical impact on treatment outcomes.MethodsThis systematic review examines the reporting practices on PI in published clinical trial results. The review employs a search of PubMed/Medline and PSYCinfo databases to identify relevant articles. It includes quantitative clinical studies treating patients with psychiatric indications using classic psychedelics (psilocybin, LSD, DMT, ayahuasca) or empathogenic drugs (MDMA) since 2000. The analytic approach follows a modified version of assessment items based on CONSORT extension statement and TIDieR checklist.ResultsThirty-three published psychedelic clinical trials met criteria. The review reveals that many published reports on psychedelic clinical trials did not report basic aspects of the intervention: 33% did not report the number of sessions, 45% did not report the duration of sessions, 42% did not report provider credentials, 52% did not report whether their intervention used a therapy manual, 64% did not reference a manual that was available to readers, and 82% did not report that they assessed treatment fidelity. A comparison with non-psychedelic trials shows that psychedelic trial reports underreport on key items related to PI.DiscussionThe study highlights the problems of underreporting and the importance of improving reporting practices regarding PI in psychedelic clinical trials to enhance research standardization and improve treatment outcomes. Recommendations for improving reporting practices are provided.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment non-adherence in randomised trials refers to situations where some participants do not receive their allocated treatment as intended. For cluster randomised trials, where the unit of randomisation is a group of participants, non-adherence may occur at the cluster or individual level. When non-adherence occurs, randomisation no longer guarantees that the relationship between treatment receipt and outcome is unconfounded, and the power to detect the treatment effects in intention-to-treat analysis may be reduced. Thus, recording adherence and estimating the causal treatment effect adequately are of interest for clinical trials.ObjectivesTo assess the extent of reporting of non-adherence issues in published cluster trials and to establish which methods are currently being used for addressing non-adherence, if any, and whether clustering is accounted for in these.MethodsWe systematically reviewed 132 cluster trials published in English in 2011 previously identified through a search in PubMed.ResultsOne-hundred and twenty three cluster trials were included in this systematic review. Non-adherence was reported in 56 cluster trials. Among these, 19 reported a treatment efficacy estimate: per protocol in 15 and as treated in 4. No study discussed the assumptions made by these methods, their plausibility or the sensitivity of the results to deviations from these assumptions.LimitationsThe year of publication of the cluster trials included in this review (2011) could be considered a limitation of this study; however, no new guidelines regarding the reporting and the handling of non-adherence for cluster trials have been published since. In addition, a single reviewer undertook the data extraction. To mitigate this, a second reviewer conducted a validation of the extraction process on 15 randomly selected reports. Agreement was satisfactory (93%).ConclusionDespite the recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement extension to cluster randomised trials, treatment adherence is under-reported. Among the trials providing adherence information, there was substantial variation in how adherence was defined, handled and reported. Researchers should discuss the assumptions required for the results to be interpreted causally and whether these are scientifically plausible in their studies. Sensitivity analyses to study the robustness of the results to departures from these assumptions should be performed.

Dataset Information

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review.

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Ensuring Superior Reporting of Radiation Therapy Noninferiority Trials: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets