[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Webinar Training: an acceptable, feasible and effective approach for multi-site medical record abstraction: the BOWII experience

Background Abstractor training is a key element in creating valid and reliable data collection procedures. The choice between in-person vs. remote or simultaneous vs. sequential abstractor training has considerable consequences for time and resource utilization. We conducted a web-based (webinar) abstractor training session to standardize training across six individual Cancer Research Network (CRN) sites for a study of breast cancer treatment effects in older women (BOWII). The goals of this manuscript are to describe the training session, its participants and participants' evaluation of webinar technology for abstraction training. Findings A webinar was held for all six sites with the primary purpose of simultaneously training staff and ensuring consistent abstraction across sites. The training session involved sequential review of over 600 data elements outlined in the coding manual in conjunction with the display of data entry fields in the study's electronic data collection system. Post-training evaluation was conducted via Survey Monkey©. Inter-rater reliability measures for abstractors within each site were conducted three months after the commencement of data collection. Ten of the 16 people who participated in the training completed the online survey. Almost all (90%) of the 10 trainees had previous medical record abstraction experience and nearly two-thirds reported over 10 years of experience. Half of the respondents had previously participated in a webinar, among which three had participated in a webinar for training purposes. All rated the knowledge and information delivered through the webinar as useful and reported it adequately prepared them for data collection. Moreover, all participants would recommend this platform for multi-site abstraction training. Consistent with participant-reported training effectiveness, results of data collection inter-rater agreement within sites ranged from 89 to 98%, with a weighted average of 95% agreement across sites. Conclusions Conducting training via web-based technology was an acceptable and effective approach to standardizing medical record review across multiple sites for this group of experienced abstractors. Given the substantial time and cost savings achieved with the webinar, coupled with participants' positive evaluation of the training session, researchers should consider this instructional method as part of training efforts to ensure high quality data collection in multi-site studies.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses

The assessment of treatment effects from observational studies may be biased with patients not randomly allocated to the experimental or control group. One way to overcome this conceptual shortcoming in the design of such studies is the use of propensity scores to adjust for differences of the characteristics between patients treated with experimental and control interventions. The propensity score is defined as the probability that a patient received the experimental intervention conditional on pre-treatment characteristics at baseline. Here, we review how propensity scores are estimated and how they can help in adjusting the treatment effect for baseline imbalances. We further discuss how to evaluate adequate overlap of baseline characteristics between patient groups, provide guidelines for variable selection and model building in modelling the propensity score, and review different methods of propensity score adjustments. We conclude that propensity analyses may help in evaluating the comparability of patients in observational studies, and may account for more potential confounding factors than conventional covariate adjustment approaches. However, bias due to unmeasured confounding cannot be corrected for.

Echinococcus multilocularis: the impact of ionizing radiation on metacestodes

Alveolar echinococcosis is caused by the metacestode stage of the fox tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis. Current chemotherapeutical options for the treatment of echinococcosis are not satisfactory, and novel drugs and/or other potential means of therapy are needed. E. multilocularis metacestodes are characterized by almost potentially unlimited growth, and also display other features of cancerous tumours. In this study, we exposed metacestodes that were generated in vitro to 50-100 Gy ionizing irradiation, and subsequently investigated the short-term (10-12 days post-treatment) and long-term (14 weeks post-treatment) effects. We found, that in the short-term, no release of alkaline phosphatase (EmAP) activity as a measure for potentially induced damage and loss of viability could be detected, and that the protein expression pattern and protease activities in vesicle fluids and medium supernatants did not alter dramatically following irradiation. However, irradiation was associated with distinct morphological and ultrastructural alterations in the tissue of metacestodes, affecting most notably cell-cell contacts, mitochondrial shape, glycogen-storage cells and lipid droplet formation. These could be detected already at 10 days following treatment and remained as such also in the long-term. In addition, as determined after 14 weeks of culture, irradiation affected the proliferation and the growth of E. multilocularis metacestodes. Thus, we demonstrate that radiotherapy does not have a clear-cut parasitocidal effect, but can lead to metabolic impairment of E. multilocularis metacestodes, as reflected by the distinct morphological and structural alterations induced by irradiation treatment.

Is the allegiance effect an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences between treatments? a meta-analysis

Many meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies found a substantial association of researcher allegiance (RA) and relative treatment effects. Therefore, RA is regarded as a biasing factor in comparative outcome research (RA bias hypothesis). However, the RA bias hypothesis has been criticized as causality might be reversed. That is, RA might be a reflection of true efficacy differences between treatments (true efficacy hypothesis). Consequently, the RA-outcome association would not be indicative of bias but an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences. This meta-analysis tested the validity of the true efficacy hypothesis. This was done by controlling the RA-outcome association for true efficacy differences by restricting analysis to direct comparisons of treatments with equivalent efficacy. We included direct comparisons of different versions of trauma-focused therapy (TFT) in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RA was measured from the research reports. Relative effect sizes for symptoms of PTSD were calculated. Random effects meta-regression was conducted. Twenty-nine comparisons of TFTs from 20 studies were identified. Initial heterogeneity among relative effect sizes was low. RA was a significant predictor of outcome and explained 12% of the variance in outcomes. The true efficacy hypothesis predicted the RA-outcome association to be zero; however, a substantial association was found. Thus, this study does not support the true efficacy hypothesis. Given findings from psychotherapy research and other fields that support a biasing influence of researcher preferences, RA should be regarded as a causal factor and conceptualized as a threat to the validity of conclusions from comparative outcome studies.

Therapy of steroid-resistant inflammatory bowel disease

Although systemic corticosteroids are successfully administered for the induction of clinical response and remission in the majority of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) presenting with a flare, a proportion of these patients demonstrate a primary nonresponse to steroids or in the case of an initial response, they develop a resistance or a steroid dependence. Long-term therapy with corticosteroids for treatment of IBD should be avoided, given the high frequency of adverse treatment effects. Knowledge about treatment strategies in case of steroid nonresponse is therefore highly relevant.

Adjunctive corticosteroids for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients with HIV-infection

BACKGROUND: Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PCP) remains the most common opportunistic infection in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Among patients with HIV infection and PCP the mortality rate is 10 to 20% during the initial infection and increases substantially with the need for mechanical ventilation. It was suggested that in these patients corticosteroids adjunctive to standard treatment for PCP could prevent the need for mechanical ventilation and decrease mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of adjunctive corticosteroids on overall mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in HIV-infected patients with PCP and substantial hypoxemia (arterial oxygen partial pressure <70 mmHg or alveolar-arterial gradient >35 mmHg on room air). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline (January 1980-December 2004), EMBASE (January 1985-December 2004) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004) without language restrictions to identify randomised controlled trials that compared adjunctive corticosteroids to control in HIV-infected patients with PCP. We further reviewed the reference lists from previously published overviews, we searched UptoDate version 2005 and Clinical Evidence Concise (Issue 12, 2004), contacted experts of the field, and searched reference lists of identified publications for citations of additional relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were considered eligible for this review if they compared corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in HIV-infected patients with PCP in addition to baseline treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, pentamidine or dapsone-trimethoprim, used random allocation, and reported mortality data. We excluded trials in patients with no or mild hypoxemia (arterial oxygen partial pressure >70 mmHg or an alveolar-arterial gradient <35 mmHg on room air) and trials with a follow-up of less than 30 days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of reviewers independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from each primary study. We pooled treatment effects across studies and calculated a weighted average risk ratio of overall mortality in the treatment and control groups by using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. Risk ratios for overall mortality for adjunctive corticosteroids were 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.98) at 1 month and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94) at 3-4 months of follow-up. To prevent 1 death, numbers needed to treat are 9 patients in a setting without highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) available, and 23 patients with HAART available. Only the 3 largest trials provided data on the need for mechanical ventilation with a risk ratio of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.20-0.73) in favour of adjunctive corticosteroids. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The number and size of trials investigating adjunctive corticosteroids for HIV-infected patients with PCP is small, but evidence from this review suggests a beneficial effect for patients with substantial hypoxemia.

Simulation-based cost-utility analysis of population screening-based alendronate use in Switzerland

A simulation model adopting a health system perspective showed population-based screening with DXA, followed by alendronate treatment of persons with osteoporosis, or with anamnestic fracture and osteopenia, to be cost-effective in Swiss postmenopausal women from age 70, but not in men. INTRODUCTION: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a population-based screen-and-treat strategy for osteoporosis (DXA followed by alendronate treatment if osteoporotic, or osteopenic in the presence of fracture), compared to no intervention, from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. METHODS: A published Markov model assessed by first-order Monte Carlo simulation was refined to reflect the diagnostic process and treatment effects. Women and men entered the model at age 50. Main screening ages were 65, 75, and 85 years. Age at bone densitometry was flexible for persons fracturing before the main screening age. Realistic assumptions were made with respect to persistence with intended 5 years of alendronate treatment. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In women, costs per QALY were Swiss francs (CHF) 71,000, CHF 35,000, and CHF 28,000 for the main screening ages of 65, 75, and 85 years. The threshold of CHF 50,000 per QALY was reached between main screening ages 65 and 75 years. Population-based screening was not cost-effective in men. CONCLUSION: Population-based DXA screening, followed by alendronate treatment in the presence of osteoporosis, or of fracture and osteopenia, is a cost-effective option in Swiss postmenopausal women after age 70.

Predicting asthma control and exacerbations: chronic asthma as a complex dynamic model

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Predicting asthma episodes is notoriously difficult but has potentially significant consequences for the individual, as well as for healthcare services. The purpose of this review is to describe recent insights into the prediction of acute asthma episodes in relation to classical clinical, functional or inflammatory variables, as well as present a new concept for evaluating asthma as a dynamically regulated homeokinetic system. RECENT FINDINGS: Risk prediction for asthma episodes or relapse has been attempted using clinical scoring systems, considerations of environmental factors and lung function, as well as inflammatory and immunological markers in induced sputum or exhaled air, and these are summarized here. We have recently proposed that newer mathematical methods derived from statistical physics may be used to understand the complexity of asthma as a homeokinetic, dynamic system consisting of a network comprising multiple components, and also to assess the risk for future asthma episodes based on fluctuation analysis of long time series of lung function. SUMMARY: Apart from the classical analysis of risk factor and functional parameters, this new approach may be used to assess asthma control and treatment effects in the individual as well as in future research trials.

Matched-pair study showed higher quality of placebo-controlled trials in Western phytotherapy than conventional medicine

OBJECTIVES: Herbal medicine (phytotherapy) is widely used, but the evidence for its effectiveness is a matter of ongoing debate. We compared the quality and results of trials of Western phytotherapy and conventional medicine. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A random sample of placebo-controlled trials of Western phytotherapy was identified in a comprehensive literature search (19 electronic databases). Conventional medicine trials matched for condition and type of outcome were selected from the Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate generation of allocation sequence and adequate concealment of allocation were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. RESULTS: Eighty-nine herbal medicine and 89 matched conventional medicine trials were analyzed. Studies of Western herbalism were smaller, less likely to be published in English, and less likely to be indexed in MEDLINE than their counterparts from conventional medicine. Nineteen (21%) herbal and four (5%) conventional medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the widely held belief that the quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of herbal medicine is generally inferior to the evidence available for conventional medicine.

Placebo-controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine and conventional medicine - comparative study

BACKGROUND: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is increasingly used in the West, but the evidence on its effectiveness is a matter of debate. We compared the characteristics, study quality and results of clinical trials of CHM and conventional medicine. METHODS: Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of CHM and conventional medicine. Eleven bibliographic databases and searches by hand of 48 Chinese-language journals. Conventional medicine trials matched for condition and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Trials described as double-blind, with adequate generation of allocation sequence and adequate concealment of allocation, were assumed to be of high quality. Data were analysed using funnel plots and multivariable meta-regression models. RESULTS: 136 CHM trials (119 published in Chinese, 17 published in English) and 136 matched conventional medicine trials (125 published in English) were analysed. The quality of Chinese-language CHM trials tended to be lower than that of English-language CHM trials and conventional medicine trials. Three (2%) CHM trials and 10 (7%) conventional medicine trials were of high quality. In all groups, smaller trials showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger trials. CHM trials published in Chinese showed considerably larger effects than CHM trials published in English (adjusted ratio of ORs 0.29, 95% confidence intervals 0.17-0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Biases are present both in placebo-controlled trials of CHM and conventional medicine, but may be most pronounced in CHM trials published in Chinese-language journals. Only few CHM trials of adequate methodology exist and the effectiveness of CHM therefore remains poorly documented.

Intravenous magnesium for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Mortality and morbidity from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high. Intravenous magnesium started early after the onset of AMI is thought to be a promising adjuvant treatment. Conflicting results from earlier trials and meta-analyses warrant a systematic review of available evidence. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of intravenous magnesium versus placebo on early mortality and morbidity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2006) and EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2006), and the Chinese Biomedical Disk (CBM disk) (January 1978 to June 2006). Some core Chinese medical journals relevant to the cardiovascular field were hand searched from their starting date to the first-half year of 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials that compared intravenous magnesium with placebo in the presence or absence of fibrinolytic therapy in addition to routine treatment were eligible if they reported mortality and morbidity within 35 days of AMI onset. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the trial quality and extracted data using a standard form. Odds ratio (OR) were used to pool the effect if appropriate. Where heterogeneity of effects was found, clinical and methodological sources of this were explored. MAIN RESULTS: For early mortality where there was evidence of heterogeneity, a fixed-effect meta-analysis showed no difference between magnesium and placebo groups (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.04), while a random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant reduction comparing magnesium with placebo (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). Stratification by timing of treatment (< 6 hrs, 6+ hrs) reduced heterogeneity, and in both fixed-effect and random-effects models no significant effect of magnesium was found. In stratified analyses, early mortality was reduced for patients not treated with thrombolysis (OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94 by random-effects model) and for those treated with less than 75 mmol of magnesium (OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.70) in the magnesium compared with placebo groups.Meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes where there was no evidence of heterogeneity showed reductions in the odds of ventricular fibrillation (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96), but increases in the odds of profound hypotension (OR=1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.19) and bradycardia (OR=1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.77) comparing magnesium with placebo. No difference was observed for heart block (OR=1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.14). For those outcomes where there was evidence of heterogeneity, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects models showed that magnesium could decrease ventricular tachycardia (OR=0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66 by fixed-effect model; OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84 by random-effects model) and severe arrhythmia needing treatment or Lown 2-5 (OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85 by fixed-effect model; OR=0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79 by random-effects model) compared with placebo. There was no difference on the effect of cardiogenic shock between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the likelihood of publication bias and marked heterogeneity of treatment effects, it is essential that the findings are interpreted cautiously. From the evidence reviewed here, we consider that: (1) it is unlikely that magnesium is beneficial in reducing mortality both in patients treated early and in patients treated late, and in patients already receiving thrombolytic therapy; (2) it is unlikely that magnesium will reduce mortality when used at high dose (>=75 mmol); (3) magnesium treatment may reduce the incidence of ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, severe arrhythmia needing treatment or Lown 2-5, but it may increase the incidence of profound hypotension, bradycardia and flushing; and (4) the areas of uncertainty regarding the effect of magnesium on mortality remain the effect of low dose treatment (< 75 mmol) and in patients not treate...