A call for uniform reporting standards in studies assessing endovascular treatment for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries

Endovascular therapy is a rapidly evolving field for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease, and a magnitude of studies reporting on various modern revascularization concepts have been recently published. Thus, studies assessing the efficacy of endovascular therapy of peripheral arteries do not operate with uniformly defined endpoints, rendering a direct comparison of studies difficult. The purpose of this consensus statement is to highlight differences in the terminology used in the current literature and to propose some standardized criteria that must be considered when reporting results of endovascular revascularization for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries.

Peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: high noon for uniform reporting standards

In the era of evidence based medicine, proof of clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness need to be firmly based on transparent comparisons between various therapeutic alternatives. Standards for reports are a prerequisite for comparisons across reports and should reflect the patient's perspective. According standards have been successfully introduced in many fields of modern medicine, but not yet for peripheral endovascular interventions. Given the overwhelmingly increasing importance of endovascular revascularization in patients with chronic lower limb ischemia, this report provides an updated outline of the heterogeneity of current reporting practice and highlights the need for uniform reporting standards.

Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: The STARDdem Initiative.

OBJECTIVE To provide guidance on standards for reporting studies of diagnostic test accuracy for dementia disorders. METHODS An international consensus process on reporting standards in dementia and cognitive impairment (STARDdem) was established, focusing on studies presenting data from which sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be derived. A working group led the initiative through 4 rounds of consensus work, using a modified Delphi process and culminating in a face-to-face consensus meeting in October 2012. The aim of this process was to agree on how best to supplement the generic standards of the STARD statement to enhance their utility and encourage their use in dementia research. RESULTS More than 200 comments were received during the wider consultation rounds. The areas at most risk of inadequate reporting were identified and a set of dementia-specific recommendations to supplement the STARD guidance were developed, including better reporting of patient selection, the reference standard used, avoidance of circularity, and reporting of test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION STARDdem is an implementation of the STARD statement in which the original checklist is elaborated and supplemented with guidance pertinent to studies of cognitive disorders. Its adoption is expected to increase transparency, enable more effective evaluation of diagnostic tests in Alzheimer disease and dementia, contribute to greater adherence to methodologic standards, and advance the development of Alzheimer biomarkers.

How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Background. No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Methods. MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Results. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for “current use” of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. Conclusions. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.

Matched-pair analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in young patients at low risk

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes of endovascular and open aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in young patients at low risk. It was hypothesized that endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compares favorably with open aneurysm repair (OAR) in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients aged 65 years or younger with a low perioperative surgical risk profile underwent EVAR at a single institution between April 1994 and May 2007 (23 men; mean age, 62 years+/-2.8). A sex- and risk-matched control group of 25 consecutive patients aged 65 years or younger who underwent OAR was used as a control group (23 men; mean age, 59 years+/-3.9). Patient outcomes and complications were classified according to Society of Vascular Surgery/International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery reporting standards. RESULTS: Mean follow-up times were 7.1 years+/-3.2 after EVAR and 5.9 years+/-1.8 after OAR (P=.1020). Total complication rates were 20% after EVAR and 52% after OAR (P=.0378), and all complications were mild or moderate. Mean intensive care unit times were 0.2 days+/-0.4 after EVAR and 1.1 days+/-0.4 after OAR (P<.0001) and mean lengths of hospital stay were 2.3 days+/-1.0 after EVAR and 5.0 days+/-2.1 after OAR (P<.0001). Cumulative rates of long-term patient survival did not differ between EVAR and OAR (P=.144). No AAA-related deaths or aortoiliac ruptures occurred during follow-up for EVAR and OAR. In addition, no surgical conversions were necessary in EVAR recipients. Cumulative rates of freedom from secondary procedures were not significantly different between the EVAR and OAR groups (P=.418). Within a multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis adjusted for patient age, maximum AAA diameter, and cardiac risk score, all-cause mortality rates (odds ratio [OR], 0.125; 95% CI, 0.010-1.493; P=.100) and need for secondary procedures (OR, 5.014; 95% CI, 0.325-77.410; P=.537) were not different between EVAR and OAR. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this observational study indicate that EVAR offers a favorable alternative to OAR in young patients at low risk.

Systemic prokinetic pharmacologic treatment for postoperative adynamic ileus following abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adynamic bowel atony interferes with recovery following abdominal surgery. Prokinetic pharmacologic drugs are widely used to accelerate postoperative recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic acting prokinetic drugs to treat postoperative adynamic ileus in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerised searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register. The reference lists of included trials and review articles were tracked and authors contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled parallel-group trials (RCT) comparing the effect of systemically acting prokinetic drugs against placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Trial authors were contacted for additional information if needed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria contributing a total of 4615 participants. Most trials enrolled a small number of patients and showed moderate to poor (reporting of) methodological quality, in particular regarding allocation concealment and intention-to-treat analysis. Fifteen systemic acting prokinetic drugs were investigated and ten comparisons could be summarized. Six RCTs support the effect of Alvimopan, a novel peripheral mu receptor antagonist. However, the trials do not meet reporting guidelines and the drug is still in an investigational stage. Erythromycin showed homogenous and consistent absence of effect across all included trials and outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of cholecystokinin-like drugs, cisapride, dopamine-antagonists, propranolol or vasopressin. Effects are either inconsistent across outcomes, or trials are too small and often of poor methodological quality. Cisapride has been withdrawn from the market due to adverse cardiac events in many countries. Intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine might show a potential effect, but more evidence on clinically relevant outcomes is needed. Heterogeneity among included trials was seen in 10 comparisons. No major adverse drug effects were evident. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Alvimopan may prove to be beneficial but proper judgement needs adherence to reporting standards. Further trials are needed on intravenous lidocaine and neostigmine. The remaining drugs can not be recommended due to lack of evidence or absence of effect.

The need for transparency and good practices in the qPCR literature

Two surveys of over 1,700 publications whose authors use quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) reveal a lack of transparent and comprehensive reporting of essential technical information. Reporting standards are significantly improved in publications that cite the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines, although such publications are still vastly outnumbered by those that do not.

Quantitative Myocardial Contrast Echocardiography during Pharmacological Stress for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

AIMS: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative stress myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Database search was performed through January 2008. We included studies evaluating accuracy of quantitative stress MCE for detection of CAD compared with coronary angiography or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and measuring reserve parameters of A, beta, and Abeta. Data from studies were verified and supplemented by the authors of each study. Using random effects meta-analysis, we estimated weighted mean difference (WMD), likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and summary area under curve (AUC), all with 95% confidence interval (CI). Of 1443 studies, 13 including 627 patients (age range, 38-75 years) and comparing MCE with angiography (n = 10), SPECT (n = 1), or both (n = 2) were eligible. WMD (95% CI) were significantly less in CAD group than no-CAD group: 0.12 (0.06-0.18) (P < 0.001), 1.38 (1.28-1.52) (P < 0.001), and 1.47 (1.18-1.76) (P < 0.001) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. Pooled LRs for positive test were 1.33 (1.13-1.57), 3.76 (2.43-5.80), and 3.64 (2.87-4.78) and LRs for negative test were 0.68 (0.55-0.83), 0.30 (0.24-0.38), and 0.27 (0.22-0.34) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. Pooled DORs were 2.09 (1.42-3.07), 15.11 (7.90-28.91), and 14.73 (9.61-22.57) and AUCs were 0.637 (0.594-0.677), 0.851 (0.828-0.872), and 0.859 (0.842-0.750) for A, beta, and Abeta reserves, respectively. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports the use of quantitative MCE as a non-invasive test for detection of CAD. Standardizing MCE quantification analysis and adherence to reporting standards for diagnostic tests could enhance the quality of evidence in this field.

Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: a report from the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography Standardization and Validation

The purpose of this document is to make the output of the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography (IWG-IVOCT) Standardization and Validation available to medical and scientific communities, through a peer-reviewed publication, in the interest of improving the diagnosis and treatment of patients with atherosclerosis, including coronary artery disease.

[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.

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.

Completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials of 3 vaccines: a review of adherence to the CONSORT checklist

Clear reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vaccines is important for understanding results and assessing their validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides guidance to help authors reporting RCTs. The objective was to assess the completeness of reporting of RCTs of vaccines based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.

Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was introduced in 1996 to improve reporting of RCTs. We aimed to determine the extent of ambiguity and reporting quality as assessed by adherence to the CONSORT statement in published reports of RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma from 1966 through 2002. METHODS: We analyzed 242 published full-text reports of RCTs in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 14-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT checklist. Reporting was studied in two pre-CONSORT periods (1966-1988 and 1989-1995) and one post-CONSORT period (1996-2002). RESULTS: Only six of the 14 items were addressed in 75% or more of the studies in all three time periods. Most items that are necessary to assess the methodologic quality of a study were reported by fewer than 20% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for some items, including the description of statistics methods used, reporting of primary research outcomes, performance of power calculations, method of randomization and concealment allocation, and having performed intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent improvements, reporting levels of CONSORT items in RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma remain unsatisfactory. Further concerted action by journal editors, learned societies, and medical schools is necessary to make authors even more aware of the need to improve the reporting RCTs in medical journals to allow assessment of validity of published clinical research.

Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting.

OBJECTIVE To describe a novel CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) adherence strategy implemented by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) and to report its impact on the completeness of reporting of published trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy, initiated in June 2011, involves active assessment of randomized clinical trial (RCT) reporting during the editorial process. The completeness of reporting CONSORT items was compared between trials submitted and published during the implementation period (July 2011 to September 2013) and trials published between August 2007 and July 2009. RESULTS Of the 42 RCTs submitted (July 2011 to September 2013), 23 were considered for publication and assessed for completeness of reporting, seven of which were eventually published. For all published RCTs between 2007 and 2009 (n = 20), completeness of reporting by CONSORT item ranged from 0% to 100% (Median = 40%, interquartile range = 60%). All published trials in 2011-2013, reported 33 of 37 CONSORT (sub) items. Four CONSORT 2010 checklist items remained problematic even after implementation of the adherence strategy: changes to methods (3b), changes to outcomes (6b) after the trial commenced, interim analysis (7b), and trial stopping (14b), which are typically only reported when applicable. CONCLUSION Trials published following implementation of the AJO-DO CONSORT adherence strategy completely reported more CONSORT items than those published or submitted previously.