Could Biscay Bay Anchovy recruit through a spatial loophole

X. Irigoien,Ø. Fiksen,U. Cotano,A. Uriarte,P. Alvarez,H. Arrizabalaga,G. Boyra,M. Santos,Y. Sagarmínaga,P. Othéguy,Egoitz Etxebeste,L. Zarauz,I. Artetxe,L. Motos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POCEAN.2007.04.011

2007-08-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Assessing the reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology protocols, abstracts, and trials: Adherence to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements

Joshua S Suppree,Sophia Hart,Sumirat M Keshwara,Sandhya Trichinopoly Krishna,Conor S Gillespie,George E Richardson,Mohammad A Mustafa,Conor L Mallucci,Barry Pizer,James Hayden,Abdurrahman I Islim,Michael D Jenkinson,Christopher P Millward

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npae042

2024-05-11

Abstract:Background: It is of vital importance to comprehensively and transparently report clinical trial activity. The SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements exist to define items to be reported in clinical trial protocols and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The aim of this methodological review was to assess the reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology trial protocols and trial result articles. Methods: Published trial protocols and phase II/III trial result articles relating to pediatric brain tumors (published after the introduction of the SPIRIT 2013 statement), were identified through searches of 4 electronic bibliographic databases. The reporting quality of included trial protocols and result articles was assessed against the aforementioned statements. In addition, the CONSORT-A checklist was used to assess the abstracts of trial result articles. Percentage adherence was calculated for each article. Results: Nine trial protocols, 68 phase II trials, and 8 phase III trial result articles were included. Mean adherence of trial protocols to the SPIRIT statement was 76.8% (SD: 0.09). Mean adherence of trial abstracts to CONSORT-A was 67.4% (SD: 0.13) for phase II abstracts and 47.5% (SD: 0.09) for phase III abstracts. Adherence of trial result articles to CONSORT was 71.3% (SD: 0.10) for phase II trials and 70.3% (SD: 0.13) for phase III trials. Conclusions: The reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology trial protocols and trial result articles requires improvement, particularly in the areas of randomization and blinding. This is consistent with our previously published findings following similar assessment of reporting quality for adult neuro-oncology trial protocols and result articles.
Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices

Thomas J. Lux,Katja Herold,Ioannis Kafetzis,Phillip Sodmann,Zita Sassmanshausen,Alexander Meining,Alexander Hann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000538113

2024-03-13

Digestion

Abstract:Introduction: Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting. Methods: We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022. Results: We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%. Conclusion: The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Performance of Initial Screening Tests for Colorectal Cancer and Subsequent Adherence to Colonoscopy: An Ecological Study

Yihui Yang,Junjie Huang,Weimiao Wu,Hung N. Luu,Foong-Ming Moy,Songsong Tan,Jiongxing Fu,Tao Ying,Mellissa Withers,Dang The Hung,Dandan Mao,Sikun Chen,Martin CS Wong,Wanghong Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3537081

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Background: Adherence to colonoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is at a low level and varies greatly across populations. No study has examined the influencing factors of colonoscopy adherence at a population level, and this remains to be an unaddressed knowledge gap. We therefore aimed to analyze the correlation between performance of initial CRC screening tests and subsequent adherence to colonoscopy base on an ecological evaluation. Methods: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of initial CRC screening tests and subsequent adherence to colonoscopy in different populations were extracted from relevant studies published in English up to December 31, 2018. The age-standardized incidences (ASR) of CRC across populations in the year of screening were obtained from the Cancer Statistics data. Locally weighted regression smoothing was used to examine the relationship between adherence to colonoscopy and ASR of CRC. Cut-off points of adherence on ASR were identified by Joinpoint Regression and used in Regression Discontinuity as potential thresholds. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used to calculate correlation coefficients. Findings: We identified 192 eligible articles. The median and interquartile range of adherence to colonoscopy was 82·5% (71·8%-90·5%). The adherence was significantly correlated with ASR of CRC in the study populations (r=0·187, p<0·001) and marginally with the PPV of initial screening tests (r=0·105, p=0·077). The change points of the adherence to colonoscopy were identified at the ASR of 32·5 and 142·5/100,000, and the ratio of adherence to colonoscopy at 143/100,000 was 0·900. In countries / areas with a moderate ASR, adherence to colonoscopy was negatively correlated with the sensitivity (r=-0·367, p=0·023) and positively with the PPV (r=0·143, p=0·040), whereas in populations with a high ASR, flexible sigmoidoscopy was more widely used as an initial screening test and achieved a high subsequent adherence to colonoscopy. Interpretation: Adherence to colonoscopy is correlated with the performance of initial screening tests, particularly among populations with moderate CRC incidence. Initial screening tests with high PPV or specificity may help to increase population adherence to colonoscopy, but different strategies should be used in countries / areas with a high or moderate incidence of CRC.Funding Statement: This study was supported by the Local High Level University Construction Project of Shanghai and the Health Commission of the Pudong New Area of Shanghai (PW2019A-5). Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: Not required.
REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol

McKechnie,T.,Kazi,T.,Wang,A.,Zhang,S.,Thabane,A.,Nanji,K.,Doumouras,A. G.,Eskicioglu,C.,Thabane,L.,Parpia,S.,Bhandari,M.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085293

IF: 3.006

2024-04-25

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction The aim of this methodological review is to evaluate the completeness of reporting of surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials as per the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Moreover, we aim to assess for the presence of spin reporting and inconsistency between abstract and main text reporting in surgical pilot and feasibility randomised trials. Methods and analysis A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Studies will be included if they are pilot or feasibility randomised trials of surgical interventions. The primary outcome will be overall CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist completeness. This will be defined as trials reporting each of the 40 items in the CONSORT statement extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials checklist. Secondary outcomes will include the reporting of individual studies as per the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, the use of spin reporting strategies, trial factors associated with reporting quality and spin strategy use, and consistency between abstract and main text reporting. Poisson and logistic regressions will be performed to explore the association between trial factors and completeness of reporting as measured by the number of reported CONSORT items. Ethics and dissemination This is a methodological survey that has been registered a priori on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023475512). Local ethics approval is not required. We plan to disseminate study results through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.

medicine, general & internal
A Global View of Adherence to Colonoscopy Follow-Up in Cascade Screening of Colorectal Cancer.

Yihui Yang,Junjie Huang,Weimiao Wu,Hung N. Luu,Foong-Ming Moy,Songsong Tan,Jiongxing Fu,Tao Ying,Mellissa Withers,Dang The Hung,Dandan Mao,Sikun Chen,Martin C. S. Wong,Wanghong Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13577

IF: 2.1

2022-01-01

European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract:Objective To overview the colonoscopy adherence in cascade screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) and evaluate potential influence of the initial tests based on an ecological evaluation. Methods The performance of the initial screening tests and adherence to subsequent colonoscopy were extracted from relevant studies published up to 16 October 2020. The age-standardised incidence (ASRi) of CRC in populations in the year of screening was derived from the Cancer Statistics. Results One hundred sixty-six observational studies and 60 experimental studies were identified. Most studies applied cascade screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) as an initial test. The adherence to colonoscopy varied greatly across populations by continents, gross national income and type of initial tests, with a median (interquartile range) of 79.8% (63.1%-87.8%) in observational studies and 82.1% (66.7%-90.4%) in randomised trials. The adherence was positively correlated with the ASRi of CRC (r = 0.145, p = 0.023) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial tests (r = 0.206, p = 0.002) in observational studies and correlated with ASRi of CRC (r = 0.309, p = 0.002) and sensitivity of the initial tests (r = -0.704, p = 0.003) in experimental studies. Conclusions Adherence to colonoscopy varies greatly across populations and is related with performance of the initial tests, indicating the importance to select appropriate initial tests.
Quantifying the impact of adherence to screening strategies on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality

Elvira D'Andrea,Dennis J Ahnen,Daniel A Sussman,Mehdi Najafzadeh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2735

Abstract:Current recommendations of The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies are based on models that assume 100% adherence. Since adherence can have a large effect on screening outcomes, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of CRC screening strategies under reported adherence rates at the population level. We developed and validated a microsimulation model to assess the effectiveness of colonoscopy (COL), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood-test (HS-gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multitarget stool DNA test (FIT-DNA), computed tomography colonography (CTC), and methylated SEPT9 DNA test (SEPT9) in terms of CRC incidence and mortality, incremental life years gained (LYG), number of colonoscopies, and adverse events for men and women 50 years or older over their lifetime. We assessed outcomes under 100% adherence rates and reported adherence rates. We also performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the impact of varying adherence levels on CRC outcomes. Assuming 100% adherence, FIT-DNA, FIT, HS-gFOBT, and SEPT9 averted 42-45 CRC cases and 25-26 CRC deaths, COL 46 cases and 26 deaths, CTC 39 cases and 23 deaths, FS 32 cases and 19 deaths per 1000 individuals. Assuming reported adherence, SEPT9 averted 37 CRC cases and 23 CRC deaths, COL 34 cases and 20 deaths, FIT-DNA, FIT, CTC and HS-gFOBT 16-25 cases and 10-16 deaths per 1000 individuals. LYG reflected the effectiveness of each strategy in reducing CRC cases and deaths. Adverse events were more common for COL (3.7 per 1000 screened) and annual SEPT9 (3.4 per 1000 screened), and proportional to the number of colonoscopies. Among the screening strategies recommended by USPSTF, colonoscopy results in the largest benefit when we account for adherence. Adherence rates higher than 65%-70% would be required for any stool or blood-based screening modality to match the benefits of colonoscopy.
Reporting characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trial protocols in traditional Chinese medicine: a cross-sectional study

Lin Zhang,Han Li,Lihan Hu,Xiangqin Ou,Hanzhi Tan,Xuanqi Zhang,Chung Tai Lau,Aiping Lyu,Zhaoxiang Bian,Xuan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1389808

IF: 5.6

2024-06-08

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Objectives: The impact of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine (SPIRIT-TCM) Extension 2018 statement on the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is not clear. This review aimed to assess the reporting characteristics and quality of RCT protocols involving interventions such as Chinese herbal medicine formulas (CHMF), acupuncture, and moxibustion published in the last 3 years. Methods: We conducted an extensive search among multiple databases, including All EBM Reviews, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R), PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov for publications in English from 1 January 2020 to 10 August 2023. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the publications, extracted predetermined information, and evaluated the reporting based on the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 checklist. Results: Of the 420 eligible protocols (comprising 163 studies on CHMF, 239 on acupuncture, and 18 on moxibustion), the average reporting compliance rate was only 35.4%. Approximately half of the assessed items fell into the category of poorly reported, demonstrating a compliance rate below 65%. Notably, reporting compliance in acupuncture and moxibustion interventional studies exhibited higher scores than compliance in CHMF studies. Conclusion: Continued, concerted, and coordinated efforts are required by journals, editors, reviewers, and investigators to improve the application and promotion of the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 reporting guideline.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Julien Péron,Gregory R Pond,Hui K Gan,Eric X Chen,Roula Almufti,Denis Maillet,Benoit You

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs259

2012-07-03

Abstract:Background: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were developed in the mid-1990s for the explicit purpose of improving clinical trial reporting. However, there is little information regarding the adherence to CONSORT guidelines of recent publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology. Methods: All phase III RCTs published between 2005 and 2009 were reviewed using an 18-point overall quality score for reporting based on the 2001 CONSORT statement. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality. To provide baseline data for future evaluations of reporting quality, RCTs were also assessed according to the 2010 revised CONSORT statement. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: A total of 357 RCTs were reviewed. The mean 2001 overall quality score was 13.4 on a scale of 0-18, whereas the mean 2010 overall quality score was 19.3 on a scale of 0-27. The overall RCT reporting quality score improved by 0.21 points per year from 2005 to 2009. Poorly reported items included method used to generate the random allocation (adequately reported in 29% of trials), whether and how blinding was applied (41%), method of allocation concealment (51%), and participant flow (59%). High impact factor (IF, P = .003), recent publication date (P = .008), and geographic origin of RCTs (P = .003) were independent factors statistically significantly associated with higher reporting quality in a multivariable regression model. Sample size, tumor type, and positivity of trial results were not associated with higher reporting quality, whereas funding source and treatment type had a borderline statistically significant impact. Conclusion: The results show that numerous items remained unreported for many trials. Thus, given the potential impact of poorly reported trials, oncology journals should require even stricter adherence to the CONSORT guidelines.
Adherence to Colonoscopy in Cascade Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Weimiao Wu,Junjie Huang,Yihui Yang,Kai Gu,Hung N. Luu,Songsong Tan,Chen Yang,Jiongxing Fu,Pingping Bao,Tao Ying,Mellissa Withers,Dandan Mao,Sikun Chen,Yangming Gong,Martin CS Wong,Wanghong Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15762

2020-01-01

Abstract:AbstractBackground and AimThis study aims to systematically evaluate adherence to colonoscopy and related factors in cascade screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) among average‐risk populations, which is crucial to achieve the effectiveness of CRC screening.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English up to October 16, 2020, and reporting the adherence to colonoscopy following positive results of initial screening tests. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was applied to estimate pooled adherence and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analysis and mixed‐effects meta‐regression analysis were performed to evaluate heterogeneous factors for adherence level.ResultsA total of 245 observational and 97 experimental studies were included and generated a pooled adherence to colonoscopy of 76.6% (95% confidence interval: 74.1–78.9) and 80.4% (95% confidence interval: 77.2–83.1), respectively. The adherence varied substantially by calendar year of screening, continents, CRC incidence, socioeconomic status, recruitment methods, and type of initial screening tests, with the initial tests as the most modifiable heterogeneous factor for adherence across both observational (Q = 162.6, P < 0.001) and experimental studies (Q = 23.2, P < 0.001). The adherence to colonoscopy was at the highest level when using flexible sigmoidoscopy as an initial test, followed by using guaiac fecal occult blood test, quantitative or qualitative fecal immunochemical test, and risk assessment. The pooled estimate of adherence was positively associated with specificity and positive predictive value of initial screening tests, but negatively with sensitivity and positivity rate.ConclusionsColonoscopy adherence is at a low level and differs by study‐level characteristics of programs and populations. Initial screening tests with high specificity or positive predictive value may be followed by a high adherence to colonoscopy.
Reporting quality of practice guidelines on colorectal cancer: evaluation using the RIGHT reporting checklist

Jing Han,Meng Tao,Xuan Wu,Ding Li,Yanfang Ma,Shaheenah Dawood,Colin W. Steele,Ker-Kan Tan,Qiming Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-2798

IF: 3.616

2021-07-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are an essential tool for translating evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist assists to guide the reporting in guidelines. We used RIGHT to assess the reporting completeness and quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC).METHODS: We searched the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) from January 1st, 2018 to December 1st, 2020 for guidelines on CRC. Websites of guideline development organizations were also searched. Two investigators assessed the reporting quality of the included guidelines, and calculated the numbers of guidelines that were compliant with each RIGHT checklist item and the mean proportions of reported items for each of the seven RIGHT checklist domains.RESULTS: Twenty-seven colorectal guidelines were included. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 71.0% for Basic information, 66.2% for Background, 45.9% for Evidence, 68.8% for Recommendations, 24.1% for Review and quality assurance, 33.3% for Funding and declaration and management of interests, and 40.7% for Other information.CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of colorectal guidelines was moderate. A systematic use of the RIGHT checklist during the development process could improve the reporting quality of guidelines in the future.

oncology,medicine, research & experimental
[Rates on the Acceptance of Colonoscopy, Fecal Immunochemical Test and a Novel Risk-Adapted Screening Approach in the Screening Programs of Colorectal Cancer As Well As Related Associated Factors].

H D Chen,M Lu,C,Y H Zhang,S M Zou,J F Shi,J S Ren,N Li,M Dai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200227-00196

2020-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To compare the rates of acceptance of colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), or a novel risk-adapted screening approach in the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Related risk factors were also studied. Methods: The study has been based on an ongoing randomized controlled trial on colorectal cancer screening programs in six centers of research since May 2018. The involved participants were those who presented at the baseline screening phase. All the participants were randomly allocated into one of the following three intervention arms in a 1∶2∶2 ratio: colonoscopy group, FIT group, and a novel risk-adapted screening group. All the participants underwent risk assessment on CRC by an established risk score system. The subjects with high-risk were recommended to undertake the colonoscopy while the low-risk ones were receiving the FIT. Detailed epidemiological data was collected through questionnaires and clinical examinations. Rates of participation and compliance in all three groups were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to explore the potential associated factors related to the acceptance of screening. Results: There were 19 546 eligible participants involved in the study, including 3 916 in the colonoscopy group, 7 854 in the FIT group, and 7 776 in the novel risk-adapted screening group, respectively. Among the 19 546 participants, the mean age was 60.5 years (SD=6.5), and 8 154 (41.7%) were males. The rates of participation in the colonoscopy, FIT and the novel risk-adapted screening groups were 42.5%, 94.0% and 85.2%, respectively. In the novel risk-adapted screening group, the participation rate was 49.2% for the high-risk participants who need to undertake colonoscopy and was 94.0% for the low-risk ones who need to undertake FIT. Results from the multivariate logistic regression models demonstrated that there were several factors associated with the rates of participation in CRC screening, including age, background of education, history of smoking cigarettes, previous history of bowel examination, chronic inflammatory bowel disease and family history of CRC among the 1(st)-degree relatives. Conclusions: FIT and the novel risk-adapted screening approach showed superior participation rates to the colonoscopy. Further efforts including health promotion campaign for specific target population are needed to improve the engagement which ensures the effectiveness of CRC screening programs.
Assessing the adherence of intervertebral disc degeneration clinical trial protocols to SPIRIT guidelines

Francis Kiptengwer Chemorion,Marc-Antonio Bisotti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.17.24315674

2024-10-18

Abstract:Introduction Clinical trials are important for advancing medical knowledge and protocols are the core documents that facilitate their appraisal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) checklist offers a framework for standardizing the quality and content of clinical trial protocols. Although there is a high growth in number of clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of various therapies, many still exhibit deficiencies in information contained in both their reports and protocols. The main objective for this study were to check the findability of intervertebral disc degeneration (IVD) clinical trial protocols and assessing their adherence to SPIRIT recommendations. Methods We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated various therapeutic interventions for IVD provided they included a control group and reported at least one relevant clinical outcome. Studies were excluded if they were not recruiting, were observational, case reports, reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, or commentaries, or if they lacked complete data, such as missing results or a protocol. A search was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov using terms related to IVD, covering the period from January 2013 to the present, aligning with the post-SPIRIT recommendation publication period. Data extraction was performed using a reduced SPIRIT checklist to assess adherence to protocol guidelines, with compliance measured across 64 key items. A narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize study characteristics, adherence levels and patterns by intervention and sponsor type. Results Adherence rates vary from 28.13% to 98.44% with a median of 48.44%. Heatmaps revealed heterogeneity, highlighting areas of consistent adherence and regions requiring improvement. High adherence was noted in inclusion criteria and outcome measurement, while lower in research ethics and funding declarations. Industry-sponsored studies demonstrated highest adherence in 'DRUG' (79.69%) and 'DEVICE' (62.50%) categories, while non-industry sponsors were most adherent in 'BIOLOGICAL' (50.00%) and 'OTHER' intervention categories. Discussion Our findings shows a critical need for findability of clinical trial protocols to assist in appraisal of interventions and enhanced adherence to SPIRIT guidelines among IVD clinical trials, for greater transparency and accuracy. Adherence is essential for ensuring high-quality evidence that can inform clinical practice and patient care in managing IVD. Keywords: SPIRIT guidelines, intervertebral disc degeneration, clinical trial protocols, adherence assessment, randomized controlled trials, protocol standardization, clinical evidence.
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

Meredith Hays,Mary Andrews,Ramey Wilson,David Callender,Patrick G O'Malley,Kevin Douglas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011082

IF: 3.006

2016-07-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for Abstracts by five high-impact general medical journals and to assess whether the quality of reporting was homogeneous across these journals.DESIGN: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study.SETTING: Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in five high-impact general medical journals.PARTICIPANTS: We used up to 100 RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2014 from each of the following journals: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals IM), The Lancet, the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome was per cent overall adherence to the 19-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Secondary outcomes included per cent adherence in checklist subcategories and assessing homogeneity of reporting quality across the individual journals.RESULTS: Search results yielded 466 abstracts, 3 of which were later excluded as they were not RCTs. Analysis was performed on 463 abstracts (97 from NEJM, 66 from Annals IM, 100 from The Lancet, 100 from The BMJ, 100 from JAMA). Analysis of all scored items showed an overall adherence of 67% (95% CI 66% to 68%) to the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. The Lancet had the highest overall adherence rate (78%; 95% CI 76% to 80%), whereas NEJM had the lowest (55%; 95% CI 53% to 57%). Adherence rates to 8 of the checklist items differed by >25% between journals.CONCLUSIONS: Among the five highest impact general medical journals, there is variable and incomplete adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist of randomised trials, with substantial differences between individual journals. Lack of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstracts reporting checklist by high-impact medical journals impedes critical appraisal of important studies. We recommend diligent assessment of adherence to reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors to promote transparency and unbiased reporting of abstracts.

medicine, general & internal
Strongly Divergent Impact of Adherence Patterns on Efficacy of Colorectal Cancer Screening: The Need to Refine Adherence Statistics

Thomas Heisser,Rafael Cardoso,Feng Guo,Tobias Moellers,Michael Hoffmeister,Hermann Brenner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000399

2021-09-01

Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs depends on the adherence to screening offers. However, identical adherence levels may result from varying patterns of the population's screening behavior. We quantified the effects of different adherence patterns on the long-term performance of CRC screening for annual fecal immunochemical testing and screening colonoscopy at 10-year intervals.METHODS: Using a multistate Markov model, we simulated scenarios where, while at the same overall adherence level, a certain proportion of the population adheres to all screening offers (selective adherence) or the entire population uses the screening offers at some point(s) of time, albeit not in the recommended frequency (sporadic adherence). Key outcomes for comparison were the numbers of prevented CRC cases and prevented CRC deaths after 50 simulated years.RESULTS: For screening with annual fecal immunochemical testing at adherence levels of 10%-50%, ratios of prevented CRC cases (CRC deaths) resulting from a sporadic vs a selective pattern ranged from 1.8 to 4.4 (1.9-5.3) for men and from 1.7 to 3.6 (1.8-4.4) for women, i.e., up to 4-5 times more CRC cases and deaths were prevented when the population followed a sporadic instead of a selective adherence pattern. Comparisons of simulated scenarios for screening colonoscopy revealed similar patterns.DISCUSSION: Over a lifelong time frame, large numbers of irregular screening attendees go along with much larger preventive effects than small numbers of perfectly adhering individuals. In clinical practice, efforts to reach as many people as possible at least sporadically should be prioritized over efforts to maximize adherence to repeat screening offers.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Reporting quality and adherence of randomized controlled trials about statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy to the CONSORT checklist

Vânia Mozetic,Letícia Leonel,Rafael Leite Pacheco,Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca,Taís Guimarães,Patricia Logullo,Rachel Riera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3868-4

IF: 2.728

2019-12-01

Trials

Abstract:Abstract Background A considerable amount of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published on statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy, a clinical condition associated with high social and economic burden. Adherence to the CONSORT statement items is imperative to ensure transparency and reproducibility in clinical research. The aim of this study is to assess the reporting quality and the adherence to CONSORT of RCTs assessing statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy. Methods We conducted a critical appraisal study at Discipline of Evidence-based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). A sensitive literature search was performed to identify all relevant RCTs, with no time or language limits. Two authors independently evaluated the reporting quality of the selected RCTs using the CONSORT statement as a standard. Results Thirteen reports of RCTs were included in this study. The adherence of the reports to CONSORT items ranged from 24% to 68%. The median score was 11 (interquartile range (IQR) 8 to 13). When analyzed separately, the methods sections of the reports had a median of three items (IQR 2 to 4) judged adherent to the methods items of CONSORT (items 3 to 12). The most underreported items were those related to trial design, title and abstract, allocation concealment, implementation of the randomization sequence, and blinding. Other important items, such as the one related to the description of the inclusion criteria, also had low adherence. Conclusions The overall adherence to the CONSORT checklist items was poor, especially in the items related to the methods section. RCT reports on statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy must be optimized to avoid reporting biases and to improve transparency and reproducibility.

medicine, research & experimental
Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications

Sean P. Grant,Evan Mayo-Wilson,G. J. Melendez-Torres,Paul Montgomery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065442

IF: 3.7

2013-05-29

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.OBJECTIVE/DESIGN: We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.DATA SOURCES: (1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work. ELIGIBILITY: (1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.RESULTS: (1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."CONCLUSION: Existing reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

multidisciplinary sciences
Postoperative Surveillance Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Patients at Urban Medical Center: is it Adequate?

Ahmad Alnasarat,Talin Darian,Awni Shahait,Mohanad Baldawi,Gamal Mostafa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.23.24307790

2024-05-23

Abstract:Aim To examine the adherence rate to surveillance guidelines after curative resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and the impact of demographic factors. Methods Data was collected retrospectively including demographics, stage at diagnosis, and adherence to surveillance guidelines as recommended by the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines, for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who underwent curative surgical resection between 2005 and 2014 in a tertiary academic medical center. Results A total of 124 patients were included (Male /female, 56.5%/ 43.5%), African American 109 (87.9%), and 70 patients (56.5%) had Medicare/Medicaid insurance. Overall, Appropriate clinical evaluation twice per year for 3 years following surgery was completed in 78 (63%) of patients. A total of 56 (45%) had carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels checked twice a year for 3 years. Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year postoperatively occurred in 64 (51.6%), and 37 (29.8%) had a second colonoscopy 3 years postoperatively. Abdomen/pelvis CT scan was obtained in 90 (72.5%) at 1 year post-operatively. In the entire cohort, strict adherence to post-recession surveillance only occurred in 46 (37.1%). There was no correlation between adherence to surveillance and gender (p=0.184), race (p=0.118), or insurance type (p=0.51). Conclusion Adherence to surveillance after curative resection of CRC was inadequate regardless of socioeconomic, medical insurance, or race. Measures should be taken to identify barriers and improve compliance with guidelines.
Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Ophthalmic Diseases Related Randomized Controlled Trials Published in SCI Journals from Mainland China

Mengtian Kang,Shiming Li,Xiaoyuan Yang,Ningli Wang,Siyan Zhan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-0160.2014.10.014

2014-01-01

Abstract:Background Randomized controlled trial (RCT) can offer high quality of evidence for the medical decisions.Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement,an international criteria for RCT report,is a guideline and methodology of RCT report.However,the assessment and application of RCT according to CONSORT are dissatisfactory in China.Objective This study was to evaluate the reporting quality of ophthalmic diseases related RCTs published in SCI journals from mainland China and offer a good methodology of RCT report.Methods The RCT literature were searched on PubMed database according to "Ophthalmology"," Eye" and all of their inferior subjective terms,and the published papers were limited in mainland China and before March,2013.Included papers were evaluated independently and checked by two searchers.The methodology and results of all retrieved papers were stratifiedly analyzed by the year of CONSORT published and revised.Results Sixty eligible RCTs were assessed,and the intervention methods were primarily surgery trials (34/60).Forty-four papers presented the comparison study of two groups with the median sample size of 76.0.Only 22％ (13/60) trial reports gave the clear identification of RCT in the title.Majority of papers described trial design,eligibility criteria for participants,detail of interventions and outcome measures.Twelve pieces of articles reported how sample size was determined,and 41 pieces referred settings and locations,but only 6 pieces recorded interim analyses and stopping guidelines.After CONSORT 2010 Statement was published,the proportion of trial reports that included details of the randomization had little improvement (RR=1.06,95％ CI:0.62-1.82).Only 42％ trial reports (25/60) offered a description about blinding method.Conclusions RCT reports related to ophthalmic diseases from mainland China in SCI journals are still flawed with certain shortcomings.Following the guidance of the CONSORT statement can improve the quality of ophthalmic diseases related RCT from mainland China.
Assessment of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolic disease based on the CONSORT statement

Ioannis Liampas,Antonios Chlinos,Vasileios Siokas,Alexandros Brotis,Efthimios Dardiotis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-019-01931-9

Abstract:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence based medicine. Ιt is crucial that RCTs have transparent reporting to facilitate their interpretation. The purpose of the present study is the evaluation of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in venous thromboembolism (VTE) based on the CONSORT statement. MEDLINE was meticulously searched, while quoted references by retrieved RCTs were manually screened. The primary objective was to establish the mean CONSORT compliance of RCTs for NOACs in VTE. Secondary objectives were the calculation of compliance per CONSORT item and the investigation for probable determining factors with regards to the reporting quality of RCTs. Reporting above 70% of the items was defined as adequate compliance to the CONSORT statement. A total of 83 articles were considered eligible. Mean adherence to the CONSORT statement was 61.84%, standard deviation (SD) = 18.72. Among retrieved studies, 35 (42.17%) reported above 70% of the items, while 48 (57.83%) described less than 70% of the items. Inter-rater agreement was satisfactory (Cohen's kappa ≥ 0.75). Items with respect to randomization and blinding were principally underreported, whereas the rest of the methodological features and results were more sufficiently reported. Logistic regression failed to demonstrate significant effect for any of the factors investigated. Impact factor [odds ratio (OR) = 1.347, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.994, 1.826), p = 0.055], number of authors [OR = 1.277, 95% CI (0.975, 1.672), p = 0.076] and presentation of participant flow-diagram [OR = 55.358, 95% CI (0.914, 3351.765), p = 0.055], came closer to significance. Exploratory analysis revealed significant, strong, positive correlation between abstract and article adherence to the CONSORT guidelines (r = 0.851, p < 0.001). Reporting quality of RCTs for NOACs in VTE is moderate. A superior reporting quality is desirable, especially relating to randomization and blinding.
Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

Huiyun Zhu,Si Chen,Pei Xie,Geliang Yang,Zhenqiang Zhong,Huiqing Zhang,Yiqi Du

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274818781309

2018-01-01

Cancer Control

Abstract:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important for evidence-based medicine; however, their quality of reporting remains to be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the report concerning solid tumor medication. Articles were searched in PubMed to identify all oncology phase III RCTs published from 2011 to 2015, and the results were classified manually through Endnote X7.0 software. Registration rate, primary end point (PEP) consistency, positive result rate, enrollment time point, outcome feedback in the registry, and publish time zone were extracted and assessed. The overall registration rate was higher than years before; nevertheless, a portion of trials showed PEP discrepancies and enrolled patients before registration in either journal formats. Trials published in top 5 general medical journals paid more attention to results feedback on registration websites and were more prompt with publication after study accomplishment. Our data suggested general medical journals may be more rigorous compared to oncology journals but identified a preference for positive results. On the whole, RCTs published between 2011 and 2015 seemed fairly standardized. Surveillance in registry and outcome feedback still needs to be strengthened for the stringency and reliability of clinical trials in solid tumor medication territory.

oncology

Could Biscay Bay Anchovy recruit through a spatial loophole

Assessing the reporting quality of pediatric neuro-oncology protocols, abstracts, and trials: Adherence to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements

Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices

Performance of Initial Screening Tests for Colorectal Cancer and Subsequent Adherence to Colonoscopy: An Ecological Study

REporting quality of PilOt randomised controlled trials in surgery (REPORTS): a methodological survey protocol

A Global View of Adherence to Colonoscopy Follow-Up in Cascade Screening of Colorectal Cancer.

Quantifying the impact of adherence to screening strategies on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality

Reporting characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trial protocols in traditional Chinese medicine: a cross-sectional study

Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Adherence to Colonoscopy in Cascade Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Reporting quality of practice guidelines on colorectal cancer: evaluation using the RIGHT reporting checklist

[Rates on the Acceptance of Colonoscopy, Fecal Immunochemical Test and a Novel Risk-Adapted Screening Approach in the Screening Programs of Colorectal Cancer As Well As Related Associated Factors].

Assessing the adherence of intervertebral disc degeneration clinical trial protocols to SPIRIT guidelines

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis

Strongly Divergent Impact of Adherence Patterns on Efficacy of Colorectal Cancer Screening: The Need to Refine Adherence Statistics

Reporting quality and adherence of randomized controlled trials about statins and/or fibrates for diabetic retinopathy to the CONSORT checklist

Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications

Postoperative Surveillance Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Patients at Urban Medical Center: is it Adequate?

Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Ophthalmic Diseases Related Randomized Controlled Trials Published in SCI Journals from Mainland China

Assessment of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolic disease based on the CONSORT statement

Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials