Mislabeling controlled clinical trials (CCTs) as "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)" in dental specialty journals

This study aimed to investigate whether studies published in dental journals with the highest impact factor, representing the 5 major dental specialties and titled as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are truly RCTs. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.

Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potential predictors associated with adequate reporting. Electronic searching was undertaken in eight leading specific and general dental journals. Replication of sample size calculations was undertaken where possible. Assumed variances or odds for control and intervention groups were also compared against those observed. The relationship between parameters including journal type, number of authors, trial design, involvement of methodologist, single-/multi-center study and region and year of publication, and the accuracy of sample size reporting was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of 413 RCTs identified, sufficient information to allow replication of sample size calculations was provided in only 121 studies (29.3%). Recalculations demonstrated an overall median overestimation of sample size of 15.2% after provisions for losses to follow-up. There was evidence that journal, methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, CI: 1.10, 3.53), multi-center settings (OR = 1.86, CI: 1.01, 3.43) and time since publication (OR = 1.24, CI: 1.12, 1.38) were significant predictors of adequate description of sample size assumptions. Among journals JCP had the highest odds of adequately reporting sufficient data to permit sample size recalculation, followed by AJODO and JDR, with 61% (OR = 0.39, CI: 0.19, 0.80) and 66% (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15, 0.75) lower odds, respectively. Both assumed variances and odds were found to underestimate the observed values. Presentation of sample size calculations in the dental literature is suboptimal; incorrect assumptions may have a bearing on the power of RCTs.

Assessment of publication bias in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence of publication bias (acceptance of articles indicating statistically significant results). METHODS: The journals possessing the highest impact factor (2008 data) in each dental specialty were included in the study. The content of the 6 most recent issues of each journal was hand searched and research articles were classified into 4 type categories: cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and interventional (nonrandomized clinical trials and randomized controlled trials). In total, 396 articles were included in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between article-reported statistical significance (dependent variable) and journal impact factor and article study type subject area (independent variables). RESULTS: A statistically significant acceptance rate of positive result was found, ranging from 75% to 90%, whereas the value of impact factor was not related to publication bias among leading dental journals. Compared with other research designs, clinical intervention studies (randomized or nonrandomized) presented the highest percentage of nonsignificant findings (20%); RCTs represented 6% of the examined investigations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, all other subspecialty journals, except the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, showed significantly decreased odds of publishing an RCT, which ranged from 60% to 93% (P < .05).

[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.

Does land-based exercise reduce pain and disability associated with hip osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine if clinical guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are supported by rigorous scientific evidence. Methods A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based exercise program (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group in terms of hip pain and/or self-reported physical function. Results Thirty-two RCTs were identified, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Only one of the five included RCTs restricted recruitment to people with hip OA, the other four RCTs also recruiting participants with knee OA. The five included studies provided data on 204 and 187 hip OA participants for pain and physical function, respectively. Combining the results of the five included RCTs using a fixed-effects model demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to −0.09). No significant benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function was detected (SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.28). Conclusion Currently there is only silver level evidence (one small RCT) supporting the benefit of land-based therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA in terms of reduced pain and improved physical function. The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results.

Measurement issues in trials of pediatric acute diarrheal diseases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, diarrheal diseases rank second among conditions that afflict children. Despite the disease burden, there is limited consensus on how to define and measure pediatric acute diarrhea in trials. OBJECTIVES: In RCTs of children involving acute diarrhea as the primary outcome, we documented (1) how acute diarrhea and its resolution were defined, (2) all primary outcomes, (3) the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure acute diarrhea and (4) the methodologic quality of included trials, as reported. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Embase, Global Health, and Medline from inception to February 2009. English-language RCTs of children younger than 19 years that measured acute diarrhea as a primary outcome were chosen. RESULTS: We identified 138 RCTs reporting on 1 or more primary outcomes related to pediatric acute diarrhea/diseases. Included trials used 64 unique definitions of diarrhea, 69 unique definitions of diarrhea resolution, and 46 unique primary outcomes. The majority of included trials evaluated short-term clinical disease activity (incidence and duration of diarrhea), laboratory outcomes, or a composite of these end points. Thirty-two trials used instruments (eg, single and multidomain scoring systems) to support assessment of disease activity. Of these, 3 trials stated that their instrument was valid; however, none of the trials (or their citations) reported evidence of this validity. The overall methodologic quality of included trials was good. CONCLUSIONS: Even in what would be considered methodologically sound clinical trials, definitions of diarrhea, primary outcomes, and instruments employed in RCTs of pediatric acute diarrhea are heterogeneous, lack evidence of validity, and focus on indices that may not be important to participants.

[Prophylaxis and therapy of postdural puncture headache--a critical evaluation of treatment options]

Since the first description of spinal and epidural anaesthesia, postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is a well known complication. Its prophylaxis and treatment has been studied and discussed for more than 100 years, but the evidence is still limited. Due to relatively low prevalence of PDPH, prospective RCTs are often missing, and the frequently self-limiting character of PDPH impedes an adequate interpretation of results from studies without a control group. Taking side effects and complications into account, a prophylactic treatment of PDPH cannot be recommended. In case of PDPH, non-opioid analgesics are the first choice treatment. The epidural blood patch remains the mainstay of severe PDPH therapy. Noninvasive therapies like theophylline, sumatriptan and ACTH can be an alternative. However, an evidence-based recommendation is lacking. The development of standard operating procedures for accidental dural punctures and PDPH is recommended.

Chapter IV: Treatment of critical limb ischaemia

Recommendations stated in the TASC II guidelines for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) regard a heterogeneous group of patients ranging from claudicants to critical limb ischaemia (CLI) patients. However, specific considerations apply to CLI patients. An important problem regarding the majority of currently available literature that reports on revascularisation strategies for PAD is that it does not focus on CLI patients specifically and studies them as a minor part of the complete cohort. Besides the lack of data on CLI patients, studies use a variety of endpoints, and even similar endpoints are often differentially defined. These considerations result in the fact that most recommendations in this guideline are not of the highest recommendation grade. In the present chapter the treatment of CLI is not based on the TASC II classification of atherosclerotic lesions, since definitions of atherosclerotic lesions are changing along the fast development of endovascular techniques, and inter-individual differences in interpretation of the TASC classification are problematic. Therefore we propose a classification merely based on vascular area of the atherosclerotic disease and the lesion length, which is less complex and eases the interpretation. Lesions and their treatment are discussed from the aorta downwards to the infrapopliteal region. For a subset of lesions, surgical revascularisation is still the gold standard, such as in extensive aorto-iliac lesions, lesions of the common femoral artery and long lesions of the superficial femoral artery (>15 cm), especially when an applicable venous conduit is present, because of higher patency and limb salvage rates, even though the risk of complications is sometimes higher than for endovascular strategies. It is however more and more accepted that an endovascular first strategy is adapted in most iliac, superficial femoral, and in some infrapopliteal lesions. The newer endovascular techniques, i.e. drug-eluting stents and balloons, show promising results especially in infrapopliteal lesions. However, most of these results should still be confirmed in large RCTs focusing on CLI patients. At some point when there is no possibility of an endovascular nor a surgical procedure, some alternative non-reconstructive options have been proposed such as lumbar sympathectomy and spinal cord stimulation. But their effectiveness is limited especially when assessing the results on objective criteria. The additional value of cell-based therapies has still to be proven from large RCTs and should therefore still be confined to a research setting. Altogether this chapter summarises the best available evidence for the treatment of CLI, which is, from multiple perspectives, completely different from claudication. The latter also stresses the importance of well-designed RCTs focusing on CLI patients reporting standardised endpoints, both clinical as well as procedural.

Chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma

Background Combined modality treatment (CMT) consisting of chemotherapy followed by localised radiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, due to long term adverse effects such as secondary malignancies, the role of radiotherapy has been questioned recently and some clinical study groups advocate chemotherapy only for this indication. Objectives We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma with respect to response rate, progression-free survival (alternatively tumour control) and overall survival (OS). Search methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL as well as conference proceedings from January 1980 to November 2010 for randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone to the same chemotherapy regimen plus radiotherapy. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage HL. Trials in which the chemotherapy differed between treatment arms were excluded. Trials with more than 20% of patients in advanced stage were also excluded. Data collection and analysis Effect measures used were hazard ratios (HR) for tumour control and OS as well as relative risks for response rates. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. Since none of the trials reported progression-free survival according to our definitions, all similar outcomes were evaluated as tumour control. Main results Five RCTs involving 1245 patients were included. The HR was 0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.66) for tumour control and 0.40 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) for OS for patients receiving CMT compared to chemotherapy alone. Complete response rates were similar between treatment groups. In sensitivity analyses another six trials were included that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria of our protocol but were considered relevant to the topic. These trials underlined the results of the main analysis. Authors' conclusions Adding radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves tumour control and overall survival in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

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.

Comparing pneumococcal conjugate vaccine schedules based on 3 and 2 primary doses: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) were first licensed for use with 3 primary doses in infancy and a booster dose. The evidence for the effects of different schedules was examined in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched 12 databases and trial registers up to March 2010. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case–control studies making direct comparisons between PCV schedules with (2p) or (3p) primary doses, with (+1) or without (+0) a booster dose. We extracted data on clinical, nasopharyngeal carriage and immunological outcomes and used meta-analysis to combine results where appropriate. Results Seropositivity levels (antibody concentration ≥0.35 μg/ml) following 3p and 2p PCV schedules were high for most serotypes (5 RCTs). Differences between schedules were generally small and tended to favour 3p schedules, particularly for serotypes 6B and 23F; between-study heterogeneity was high. Seropositivity levels following 3p+1 and 2p+1 schedules were similar but small differences favouring 3p+1 schedules were seen for serotypes 6B and 23F. We did not identify any RCTs reporting clinical outcomes for these comparisons. In 2 RCTs there was weak evidence of a reduction in carriage of S. pneumoniae serotypes included in the vaccine when 3p+0 schedules were compared to 2p+0 at 6 months of age. Conclusions Most data about the relative effects of different PCV schedules relate to immunological outcomes. Both 3p and 2p schedules result in high levels of seropositivity. The clinical relevance of differences in immunological outcomes between schedules is not known. There is an absence of clinical outcome data from RCTs with direct comparisons of any 2p with any 3p PCV schedule.

Risk factors for geriatric patient falls in rehabilitation hospital settings: a systematic review

Objective: To review the literature to identify and synthesize the evidence on risk factors for patient falls in geriatric rehabilitation hospital settings. Data sources: Eligible studies were systematically searched on 16 databases from inception to December 2010. Review methods: The search strategies used a combination of terms for rehabilitation hospital patients, falls, risk factors and older adults. Cross-sectional, cohort, case-control studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English that investigated risks for falls among patients ≥65 years of age in rehabilitation hospital settings were included. Studies that investigated fall risk assessment tools, but did not investigate risk factors themselves or did not report a measure of risk (e.g. odds ratio, relative risk) were excluded. Results: A total of 2,824 references were identified; only eight articles concerning six studies met the inclusion criteria. In these, 1,924 geriatric rehabilitation patients were followed. The average age of the patients ranged from 77 to 83 years, the percentage of women ranged from 56% to 81%, and the percentage of fallers ranged from 15% to 54%. Two were case-control studies, two were RCTs and four were prospective cohort studies. Several intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for falls were identified. Conclusion: Carpet flooring, vertigo, being an amputee, confusion, cognitive impairment, stroke, sleep disturbance, anticonvulsants, tranquilizers and antihypertensive medications, age between 71 and 80, previous falls, and need for transfer assistance are risk factors for geriatric patient falls in rehabilitation hospital settings.

Meta-analysis of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients with depression and coronary heart disease

The occurrence of depression in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) substantially increases the likelihood of a poorer cardiovascular prognosis. Although antidepressants are generally effective in decreasing depression, their use in patients with CHD is controversial. We carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the health effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo or no antidepressants in patients with CHD and depression. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register and other trial registries, and references of relevant articles. Primary outcomes were readmission for CHD (including myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and stroke) and all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was severity of depression symptoms. Seven articles on 6 RCTs involving 2,461 participants were included. One study incorrectly randomized participants, and another was a reanalysis of RCT data. These were considered observational and analyzed separately. When only properly randomized trials were considered (n = 734 patients), patients on SSRIs showed no significant differences in mortality (risk ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 2.01) or CHD readmission rates (0.74, 0.44 to 1.23) compared to controls. Conversely, when all studies were included, SSRI use was associated with a significant decrease in CHD readmission (0.63, 0.46 to 0.86) and mortality rates (0.56, 0.35 to 0.88). A significantly greater improvement in depression symptoms was always apparent in patients on SSRIs with all selected indicators. In conclusion, in patients with CHD and depression, SSRI medication decreases depression symptoms and may improve CHD prognosis.

Reporting of consistency of blood pressure control in randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review of 1372 trial reports

Hypertension is a powerful treatable risk factor for stroke. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs rightly concentrate on clinical outcomes, but control of blood pressure (BP) during follow-up is also important, particularly given that inconsistent control is associated with a high risk of stroke and that antihypertensive drug classes differ in this regard.