Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

Global Estimates of the Prevalence and Incidence of Four Curable Sexually Transmitted Infections in 2012 Based on Systematic Review and Global Reporting.

BACKGROUND Quantifying sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevalence and incidence is important for planning interventions and advocating for resources. The World Health Organization (WHO) periodically estimates global and regional prevalence and incidence of four curable STIs: chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis. METHODS AND FINDINGS WHO's 2012 estimates were based upon literature reviews of prevalence data from 2005 through 2012 among general populations for genitourinary infection with chlamydia, gonorrhoea, and trichomoniasis, and nationally reported data on syphilis seroprevalence among antenatal care attendees. Data were standardized for laboratory test type, geography, age, and high risk subpopulations, and combined using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach. Regional incidence estimates were generated from prevalence estimates by adjusting for average duration of infection. In 2012, among women aged 15-49 years, the estimated global prevalence of chlamydia was 4.2% (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 3.7-4.7%), gonorrhoea 0.8% (0.6-1.0%), trichomoniasis 5.0% (4.0-6.4%), and syphilis 0.5% (0.4-0.6%); among men, estimated chlamydia prevalence was 2.7% (2.0-3.6%), gonorrhoea 0.6% (0.4-0.9%), trichomoniasis 0.6% (0.4-0.8%), and syphilis 0.48% (0.3-0.7%). These figures correspond to an estimated 131 million new cases of chlamydia (100-166 million), 78 million of gonorrhoea (53-110 million), 143 million of trichomoniasis (98-202 million), and 6 million of syphilis (4-8 million). Prevalence and incidence estimates varied by region and sex. CONCLUSIONS Estimates of the global prevalence and incidence of chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis, and syphilis in adult women and men remain high, with nearly one million new infections with curable STI each day. The estimates highlight the urgent need for the public health community to ensure that well-recognized effective interventions for STI prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment are made more widely available. Improved estimation methods are needed to allow use of more varied data and generation of estimates at the national level.

The Effect of Incidental Consolidation on Management and Outcomes in COPD Exacerbations: Data from the European COPD Audit

OBJECTIVE There is controversy regarding the significance of radiological consolidation in the context of COPD exacerbation (eCOPD). While some studies into eCOPD exclude these cases, consolidation is a common feature of eCOPD admissions in real practice. This study aims to address the question of whether consolidation in eCOPD is a distinct clinical phenotype with implications for management decisions and outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS The European COPD Audit was carried out in 384 hospitals from 13 European countries between 2010 and 2011 to analyze guideline adherence in eCOPD. In this analysis, admissions were split according to the presence or not of consolidation on the admission chest radiograph. Groups were compared in terms of clinical and epidemiological features, existing treatment, clinical care utilized and mortality. RESULTS 14,111 cases were included comprising 2,714 (19.2%) with consolidation and 11,397 (80.8%) without. The risk of radiographic consolidation increased with age, female gender, cardiovascular diseases, having had two or more admissions in the previous year, and sputum color change. Previous treatment with inhaled steroids was not associated. Patients with radiographic consolidation were significantly more likely to receive antibiotics, oxygen and non-invasive ventilation during the admission and had a lower survival from admission to 90-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Patients admitted for COPD exacerbation who have radiological consolidation have a more severe illness course, are treated more intensively by clinicians and have a poorer prognosis. We recommend that these patients be considered a distinct subset in COPD exacerbation.

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently. RESULTS One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p<0.001). The risk of reporting significant results was lower for both downgraded outcomes [RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.58, p = 0.24] and upgraded or newly introduced outcomes [RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.64, p = 0.50] compared to outcomes with no discrepancies. The risk of reporting significant results was higher for upgraded or newly introduced outcomes compared to downgraded outcomes (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.65, 2.16, p = 0.57). None of the comparisons reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION While no evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in this study, based on the present analysis of SRs published within COHG systematic reviews, discrepancies between outcomes in pre-published protocols and final reviews continue to be common. Solutions such as the use of standardized outcomes to reduce the prevalence of this issue may need to be explored.

Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES The purpose of the study was to provide empirical evidence about the reporting of methodology to address missing outcome data and the acknowledgement of their impact in Cochrane systematic reviews in the mental health field. METHODS Systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews after January 1, 2009 by three Cochrane Review Groups relating to mental health were included. RESULTS One hundred ninety systematic reviews were considered. Missing outcome data were present in at least one included study in 175 systematic reviews. Of these 175 systematic reviews, 147 (84%) accounted for missing outcome data by considering a relevant primary or secondary outcome (e.g., dropout). Missing outcome data implications were reported only in 61 (35%) systematic reviews and primarily in the discussion section by commenting on the amount of the missing outcome data. One hundred forty eligible meta-analyses with missing data were scrutinized. Seventy-nine (56%) of them had studies with total dropout rate between 10 and 30%. One hundred nine (78%) meta-analyses reported to have performed intention-to-treat analysis by including trials with imputed outcome data. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete outcome data was implemented in less than 20% of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of the techniques for handling missing outcome data and their implications in the findings of the systematic reviews are suboptimal.

Outcome discrepancies and selective reporting: impacting the leading journals?

BACKGROUND Selective outcome reporting of either interesting or positive research findings is problematic, running the risk of poorly-informed treatment decisions. We aimed to assess the extent of outcome and other discrepancies and possible selective reporting between registry entries and published reports among leading medical journals. METHODS Randomized controlled trials published over a 6-month period from July to December 31st, 2013, were identified in five high impact medical journals: The Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were obtained. Discrepancies between published studies and registry entries were identified and related to factors including registration timing, source of funding and presence of statistically significant results. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 137 RCTs were found. Of these, 18% (n = 25) had discrepancies related to primary outcomes with the primary outcome changed in 15% (n = 20). Moreover, differences relating to non-primary outcomes were found in 64% (n = 87) with both omission of pre-specified non-primary outcomes (39%) and introduction of new non-primary outcomes (44%) common. No relationship between primary or non-primary outcome change and registration timing (prospective or retrospective; P = 0.11), source of funding (P = 0.92) and presence of statistically significant results (P = 0.92) was found. CONCLUSIONS Discrepancies between registry entries and published articles for primary and non-primary outcomes were common among trials published in leading medical journals. Novel approaches are required to address this problem.

Timely Reporting and Interactive Visualization of Animal Health and Slaughterhouse Surveillance Data in Switzerland

The reporting of outputs from health surveillance systems should be done in a near real-time and interactive manner in order to provide decision makers with powerful means to identify, assess, and manage health hazards as early and efficiently as possible. While this is currently rarely the case in veterinary public health surveillance, reporting tools do exist for the visual exploration and interactive interrogation of health data. In this work, we used tools freely available from the Google Maps and Charts library to develop a web application reporting health-related data derived from slaughterhouse surveillance and from a newly established web-based equine surveillance system in Switzerland. Both sets of tools allowed entry-level usage without or with minimal programing skills while being flexible enough to cater for more complex scenarios for users with greater programing skills. In particular, interfaces linking statistical softwares and Google tools provide additional analytical functionality (such as algorithms for the detection of unusually high case occurrences) for inclusion in the reporting process. We show that such powerful approaches could improve timely dissemination and communication of technical information to decision makers and other stakeholders and could foster the early-warning capacity of animal health surveillance systems.

Output processing and automatic reporting with Stata

This talk illustrates how results from various Stata commands can be processed efficiently for inclusion in customized reports. A two-step procedure is proposed in which results are gathered and archived in the first step and then tabulated in the second step. Such an approach disentangles the tasks of computing results (which may take long) and preparing results for inclusion in presentations, papers, and reports (which you may have to do over and over). Examples using results from model estimation commands and various other Stata commands such as tabulate, summarize, or correlate are presented. Users will also be shown how to dynamically link results into word processors or into LaTeX documents.