Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications

OBJECTIVES To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals

OBJECTIVES Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. METHODS Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. RESULTS Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8-74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in implantology journals requires further improvement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.

Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVES A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. METHODS Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS 228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described. CONCLUSIONS The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

Incident malignancies among older long-term breast cancer survivors and an age-matched and site-matched nonbreast cancer comparison group over 10 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND Of the approximately 2.4 million American women with a history of breast cancer, 43% are aged ≥ 65 years and are at risk for developing subsequent malignancies. METHODS Women from 6 geographically diverse sites included 5-year breast cancer survivors (N = 1361) who were diagnosed between 1990 and 1994 at age ≥ 65 years with stage I or II disease and a comparison group of women without breast cancer (N = 1361). Women in the comparison group were age-matched and site-matched to breast cancer survivors on the date of breast cancer diagnosis. Follow-up began 5 years after the index date (survivor diagnosis date or comparison enrollment date) until death, disenrollment, or through 15 years after the index date. Data were collected from medical records and electronic sources (cancer registry, administrative, clinical, National Death Index). Analyses included descriptive statistics, crude incidence rates, and Cox proportional hazards regression models for estimating the risk of incident malignancy and were adjusted for death as a competing risk. RESULTS Survivors and women in the comparison group were similar: >82% were white, 55% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0, and ≥ 73% had a body mass index ≤ 30 kg/m(2) . Of all 306 women (N = 160 in the survivor group, N = 146 in the comparison group) who developed a first incident malignancy during follow-up, the mean time to malignancy was similar (4.37 ± 2.81 years vs 4.03 ± 2.76 years, respectively; P = .28), whereas unadjusted incidence rates were slightly higher in survivors (1882 vs 1620 per 100,000 person years). The adjusted hazard of developing a first incident malignancy was slightly elevated in survivors in relation to women in the comparison group, but it was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.47). CONCLUSIONS Older women who survived 5 years after an early stage breast cancer diagnosis were not at an elevated risk for developing subsequent incident malignancies up to 15 years after their breast cancer diagnosis.

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Reporting and publication bias is a well-known problem in meta-analysis and healthcare research. In 2002 we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on overall survival in cancer patients, which suggested some evidence for improved survival in patients receiving ESAs compared with controls. However, a meta-analysis of individual patient data conducted several years later showed the opposite of our first meta-analysis, that is, evidence for increased on-study mortality and reduced overall survival in cancer patients receiving ESAs. We aimed to determine whether the results of our first meta-analysis could have been affected by publication and reporting biases and, if so, whether timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data could have prevented this. We conducted a hypothetical meta-analysis for overall survival including all studies and study data that could have been available in 2002, at the time when we conducted our first meta-analysis. Compared with our original meta-analysis, which suggested an overall survival benefit for cancer patients receiving ESAs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67‒0.99], our hypothetical meta-analysis based on the results of all studies conducted at the time of the first analysis did not show evidence for a beneficial effect of ESAs on overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83‒1.12). Thus we have to conclude that our first meta-analysis showed misleading overall survival benefits due to publication and reporting biases, which could have been prevented by timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data. Unrestricted access to clinical study protocols including amendments, clinical study reports and individual patient data is needed to ensure timely detection of both beneficial and harmful effects of healthcare interventions.

Current practice in neuropsychological outcome reporting after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage

BACKGROUND Neuropsychological deficits (NPD) are common in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). NPD are one of the major limiting factors for patients with an otherwise acceptable prognosis for sustained quality of life. There are only a few studies reporting outcome after aSAH, which used a standardized neuropsychological test battery as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Aim of this study was to determine the current practice of reporting NPD following aSAH in clinical studies. METHODS A MEDLINE analysis was performed using the search term "subarachnoid haemorrhage outcome". The latest 1,000 articles were screened. We recorded study design, number of patients, and the presence of neuropsychological outcome report. Additionally, the time of testing after aSAH, the neuropsychological tests administered, as well as the percentage of patients with NPD were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 324 publications between 2009 and 2012 were selected for further review. Of those, 21 studies (6.5%) reported neuropsychological outcome, in 2,001 of 346,666 patients (0.6%). The assessment of NPD differed broadly using both subjective and objective cognitive evaluation, and a large variety of tests were used. CONCLUSION Neuropsychological outcome is underreported, and there is great variety in assessment in currently published clinical articles on aSAH. Prospective randomized trials treating aSAH may benefit from implementing more comprehensive and standardized neuropsychological outcome measures. This approach might identify otherwise unnoticed treatment effects in future interventional studies of aSAH patients.

Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis is associated with reduced risk of incident tuberculosis in participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

Cotrimoxazole reduces mortality in HIV-infected adults with tuberculosis (TB), and in vitro data suggest potential anti-mycobacterial activity of cotrimoxazole. We aimed to evaluate whether prophylaxis with cotrimoxazole is associated with a decreased risk of incident TB in SHCS participants. We determined the incidence of TB per 1000 person-years from January 1992 to December 2012. Rates were analyzed separately in participants with current or no previous antiretroviral treatment (ART) using Poisson regression adjusted for CD4 cell count, sex, region of origin, injecting drug use, and age. 13,431 cohort participants contributed 107,549 person-years follow-up; 182 patients had incident TB; 132 (73%) before and 50 (27%) after ART initiation. The multivariable incidence rate ratios for cumulative cotrimoxazole exposure per year for persons with no previous and current ART were 0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.89) and 0.87 (0.74-1.0) respectively. Cotrimoxazole may prevent the development of TB among HIV-positive persons, especially among those with no previous ART.

Risk of incident stroke in patients with Alzheimer disease or vascular dementia

OBJECTIVE To explore the risk of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or TIA in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VD). METHODS We conducted a follow-up study with a nested case-control analysis using the UK-based General Practice Research Database. We included patients aged 65 years and older with an incident diagnosis of AD or VD between 1998 and 2008 and a comparison group of dementia-free patients. We estimated incidence rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or TIA in patients with AD, VD, or without dementia, and we calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of developing such an outcome in patients with AD or VD, stratified by use of antipsychotic drugs. RESULTS We followed 6,443 cases with AD, 2,302 with VD, and 9,984 dementia-free patients over time and identified 281 cases with incident ischemic stroke, 139 with hemorrhagic stroke, and 379 with TIA. The incidence rates of ischemic stroke for patients with AD, VD, or no dementia were 4.7/1,000 person-years (PYs) (95% CI 3.8-5.9), 12.8/1,000 PYs (95% CI 9.8-16.8), and 5.1/1,000 PYs (95% CI 4.3-5.9), respectively. Compared with dementia-free patients, the odds ratio of developing a TIA for patients with AD treated with atypical antipsychotic drugs was 4.5 (95% CI 2.1-9.2). CONCLUSIONS Patients with VD, but not AD, have a markedly higher risk of developing an ischemic stroke than those without dementia. In patients with AD, but not VD, use of atypical antipsychotic drugs was associated with an increased risk of TIA.

Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID): an extension of the STROBE statement

Molecular data are now widely used in epidemiological studies to investigate the transmission, distribution, biology, and diversity of pathogens. Our objective was to establish recommendations to support good scientific reporting of molecular epidemiological studies to encourage authors to consider specific threats to valid inference. The statement Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID) builds upon the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative. The STROME-ID statement was developed by a working group of epidemiologists, statisticians, bioinformaticians, virologists, and microbiologists with expertise in control of infection and communicable diseases. The statement focuses on issues relating to the reporting of epidemiological studies of infectious diseases using molecular data that were not addressed by STROBE. STROME-ID addresses terminology, measures of genetic diversity within pathogen populations, laboratory methods, sample collection, use of molecular markers, molecular clocks, timeframe, multiple-strain infections, non-independence of infectious-disease data, missing data, ascertainment bias, consistency between molecular and epidemiological data, and ethical considerations with respect to infectious-disease research. In total, 20 items were added to the 22 item STROBE checklist. When used, the STROME-ID recommendations should advance the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, with clear benefits for evidence reviews and health-policy decision making.

Cortical bone loss at the tibia in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis is associated with incident non-vertebral fractures: Results of a randomized controlled ancillary study of HORIZON

BACKGROUND In postmenopausal women, yearly intravenous zoledronate (ZOL) compared to placebo (PLB) significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) and decreased fracture risk. The effects of ZOL on BMD at the tibial epiphysis (T-EPI) and diaphysis (T-DIA) are unknown. METHODS A randomized controlled ancillary study of the HORIZON trial was conducted at the Department of Osteoporosis of the University Hospital of Berne, Switzerland. Women with ≥1 follow-up DXA measurement who had received ≥1 dose of either ZOL (n=55) or PLB (n=55) were included. BMD was measured at LS, FN, TH, T-EPI, and T-DIA at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Morphometric vertebral fractures were assessed. Incident clinical fractures were recorded as adverse events. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were comparable with those in HORIZON and between groups. After 36 months, BMD was significantly higher in women treated with ZOL vs. PLB at LS, FN, TH, and T-EPI (+7.6%, +3.7%, +5.6%, and +5.5%, respectively, p<0.01 for all) but not T-DIA (+1.1%). The number of patients with ≥1 incident non-vertebral or morphometric fracture did not differ between groups (9 ZOL/11 PLB). Mean changes in BMD did not differ between groups with and without incident fracture, except that women with an incident non-vertebral fracture had significantly higher bone loss at predominantly cortical T-DIA (p=0.005). CONCLUSION ZOL was significantly superior to PLB at T-EPI but not at T-DIA. Women with an incident non-vertebral fracture experienced bone loss at T-DIA.