ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings. OUTCOME: The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data. CONCLUSIONS: The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of a virtual reality distraction for needle pain in 2 common hospital settings: the emergency department (ED) and outpatient pathology (ie, outpatient laboratory). The control was standard of care (SOC) practice. STUDY DESIGN: In 2 clinical trials, we randomized children aged 4-11 years undergoing venous needle procedures to virtual reality or SOC at 2 tertiary Australian hospitals. In the first study, we enrolled children in the ED requiring intravenous cannulation or venipuncture. In the second, we enrolled children in outpatient pathology requiring venipuncture. In the ED, 64 children were assigned to virtual reality and 59 to SOC. In pathology, 63 children were assigned to virtual reality and 68 to SOC; 2 children withdrew assent in the SOC arm, leaving 66. The primary endpoint was change from baseline pain between virtual reality and SOC on child-rated Faces Pain Scale-Revised. RESULTS: In the ED, there was no change in pain from baseline with SOC, whereas virtual reality produced a significant reduction in pain (between-group difference, -1.78; 95% CI, -3.24 to -0.317; P = .018). In pathology, both groups experienced an increase in pain from baseline, but this was significantly less in the virtual reality group (between-group difference, -1.39; 95% CI, -2.68 to -0.11; P = .034). Across both studies, 10 participants experienced minor adverse events, equally distributed between virtual reality/SOC; none required pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In children aged 4-11 years of age undergoing intravenous cannulation or venipuncture, virtual reality was efficacious in decreasing pain and was safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12617000285358p.
