Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials.

BACKGROUND: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated ß = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated ß = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting. CONCLUSION: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY): summary of findings and assessment of existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. METHODS: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. RESULTS: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs.

Quality assessment of paediatric randomized controlled trials published in China from 1999 to 2022: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are usually the basis of evidence-based medicine, but whether the results of RCTs can be correctly translated into clinical practice depends on the quality of the literature reported. In this study, we evaluated the general characteristics and quality of paediatric RCTs published in China to provide evidence for the reporting of paediatric RCTs and their application in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of paediatric RCTs published in paediatric journals in China between January 1, 1999, and December 30, 2022. All RCTs that included children (younger than 18 years old) were retrieved, and the general characteristics of the RCTs were extracted and analysed. The quality of the RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane quality assessment protocol. RESULTS: After screening 20 available paediatric journals, 3545 RCTs were included for analysis. The average annual growth rate of the number of published paediatric RCTs from 1999 to 2022 was 7.8% (P = 0.005, R2 = 0.311). Most of the studies were carried out in East China [1148 (32.4%]; the centres of the RCTs were mainly single-centre [3453 (97.4%], and the interventions were mainly medication [2442 (68.9%)]. Comparing RCTs published in 2017-2022 with RCTs published in 1999-2004, the quality of RCTs significantly improved in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding participants and personnel, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. RCTs published in multiple centres from the Chinese Science Citation Database were identified, and the approval of the ethics committee was of better quality for all the analysed risk of bias items. CONCLUSION: The number and quality of paediatric RCTs reported in China have improved in recent years, but the overall quality was relatively low. Special attention should be given to allocation concealment and blinding outcome assessment, and dropouts, adverse effects and sample size calculations should be reported. Promoting government policies, strengthening the standardization of journal publishing and advancing the registration of clinical trials are feasible measures.

Adaptive clinical trials in surgery: A scoping review of methodological and reporting quality.

IMPORTANCE: Adaptive surgical trials are scarce, but adopting these methods may help elevate the quality of surgical research when large-scale RCTs are impractical. OBJECTIVE: Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based healthcare. Despite an increase in the number of RCTs, the number of surgical trials remains unchanged. Adaptive clinical trials can streamline trial design and time to trial reporting. The advantages identified for ACTs may help to improve the quality of future surgical trials. We present a scoping review of the methodological and reporting quality of adaptive surgical trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We performed a search of Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane Collaboration for all adaptive surgical RCTs performed from database inception to October 12, 2023. We included any published trials that had at least one surgical arm. All review and abstraction were performed in duplicate. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2.0 instrument and reporting quality was evaluated using CONSORT ACE 2020. All results were analyzed using descriptive methods. FINDINGS: Of the 1338 studies identified, six trials met inclusion criteria. Trials were performed in cardiothoracic, oral, orthopedic, and urological surgery. The most common type of adaptive trial was group sequential design with pre-specified interim analyses planned for efficacy, futility, and/or sample size re-estimation. Two trials did use statistical simulations. Our risk of bias evaluation identified a high risk of bias in 50% of included trials. Reporting quality was heterogeneous regarding trial design and outcome assessment and details in relation to randomization and blinding concealment. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Surgical trialists should consider implementing adaptive components to help improve patient recruitment and reduce trial duration. Reporting of future adaptive trials must adhere to existing CONSORT ACE 2020 guidelines. Future research is needed to optimize standardization of adaptive methods across medicine and surgery.

The reporting quality and spin of randomized controlled trials of endometriosis pain: Methodological study based on CONSORT extension on abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reporting quality of published RCT abstracts regarding patients with endometriosis pelvic pain and investigate the prevalence and characteristics of spin in these abstracts. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were searched for RCT abstracts addressing endometriosis pelvic pain published from January 1st, 2010 to December 1st, 2023.The reporting quality of RCT abstracts was assessed using the CONSORT statement for abstracts. Additionally, spin was evaluated in the results and conclusions section of the abstracts, defined as the misleading reporting of study findings to emphasize the perceived benefits of an intervention or to confound readers from statistically non-significant results. Assessing factors affecting the reporting quality and spin existence, linear and logistic regression was used, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 47 RCT abstracts were included. Out of 16 checklist items, only three items including objective, intervention and conclusions were sufficiently reported in the most abstracts (more than 95%), and none of the abstracts presented precise data as required by the CONSORT-A guidelines. In the reporting quality of material and method section, trial design, type of randomization, the generation of random allocation sequences, the allocation concealment and blinding were most items identified that were suboptimal. The total score for the quality varied between 5 and 15 (mean: 9.59, SD: 3.03, median: 9, IQR: 5). Word count (beta = 0.015, p-value = 0.005) and publishing in open-accessed journals (beta = 2.023, p-value = 0.023) were the significant factors that affecting the reporting quality. Evaluating spin within each included paper, we found that 18 (51.43%) papers had statistically non-significant results. From these studies, 12 (66.66%) had spin in both results and conclusion sections. Furthermore, the spin intensity increased during 2010-2023 and 38.29% of abstracts had spin in both results and conclusion sections. CONCLUSION: Overall poor adherence to CONSORT-A was observed, with spin detected in several RCTs featuring non-significant primary endpoints in obstetrics and gynecology literature.

Patient information leaflets for placebo-controlled surgical trials: a review of current practice and recommendations for developers.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent for participation in an RCT is an important ethical and legal requirement. In placebo surgical trials, further issues are raised, and to date, this has not been explored. Patient information leaflets (PILs) are a core component of the informed consent process. This study aimed to investigate the key content of PILs for recently completed placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery, to highlight areas of good practice, identify gaps in information provision for trials of this type and provide recommendations for practice. METHODS: PILs were sought from trials included in a recent systematic review of placebo-controlled trials of invasive procedures, including surgery. Trial characteristics and data on surgical and placebo interventions under evaluation were extracted. Directed content analysis was applied, informed by published regulatory and good practice guidance on PIL content and existing research on placebo-controlled surgical trials. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of the 62 eligible RCTs, authors of 59 trials were contactable and 14 PILs were received for analysis. At least 50% of all PILs included content on general trial design. Explanations of how the placebo differs or is similar to the surgical intervention (i.e. fidelity) were reported in 6 (43%) of the included PILs. Over half (57%) of the PILs included information on the potential therapeutic benefits of the surgical intervention. One (7%) included information on potential indirect therapeutic benefits from invasive components of the placebo. Five (36%) presented the known risks of the placebo intervention, whilst 8 (57%) presented information on the known risks of the surgical intervention. A range of terms was used across the PILs to describe the placebo component, including 'control', 'mock' and 'sham'. CONCLUSION: Developers of PILs for placebo-controlled surgical trials should carefully consider the use of language (e.g. sham, mock), be explicit about how the placebo differs (or is similar) to the surgical intervention and provide balanced presentations of potential benefits and risks of the surgical intervention separately from the placebo. Further research is required to determine optimal approaches to design and deliver this information for these trials.

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

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.

Accuracy of Event Rate and Effect Size Estimation in Major Cardiovascular Trials: A Systematic Review.

Importance: For the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), estimation of the expected event rate and effect size of an intervention is needed to calculate the sample size. Overestimation may lead to an underpowered trial. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of published estimates of event rate and effect size in contemporary cardiovascular RCTs. Evidence Review: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE for multicenter cardiovascular RCTs associated with MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms for cardiovascular diseases published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or the Lancet between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Identified trials underwent abstract review; eligible trials then underwent full review, and those with insufficiently reported data were excluded. Data were extracted from the original publication or the study protocol, and a random-effects model was used for data pooling. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline. The primary outcome was the accuracy of event rate and effect size estimation. Accuracy was determined by comparing the observed event rate in the control group and the effect size with their hypothesized values. Linear regression was used to determine the association between estimation accuracy and trial characteristics. Findings: Of the 873 RCTs identified, 374 underwent full review and 30 were subsequently excluded, resulting in 344 trials for analysis. The median observed event rate was 9.0% (IQR, 4.3% to 21.4%), which was significantly lower than the estimated event rate of 11.0% (IQR, 6.0% to 25.0%) with a median deviation of -12.3% (95% CI, -16.4% to -5.6%; P < .001). More than half of the trials (196 [61.1%]) overestimated the expected event rate. Accuracy of event rate estimation was associated with a higher likelihood of refuting the null hypothesis (0.13 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.25]; P = .03). The median observed effect size in superiority trials was 0.91 (IQR, 0.74 to 0.99), which was significantly lower than the estimated effect size of 0.72 (IQR, 0.60 to 0.80), indicating a median overestimation of 23.1% (95% CI, 17.9% to 28.3%). A total of 216 trials (82.1%) overestimated the effect size. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of contemporary cardiovascular RCTs, event rates of the primary end point and effect sizes of an intervention were frequently overestimated. This overestimation may have contributed to the inability to adequately test the trial hypothesis.

Analysis of core outcome set reporting in coronary intervention trials.

BACKGROUND: This paper will focus on outcome reporting within percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials. A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes that are recommended to be reported in every clinical trial. Using a COS can help to ensure that all relevant outcomes are consistently reported across clinical trials. In 2018, the European Society of Cardiology outlined the only COS published for PCI trials. METHODS: We searched the literature for all randomised controlled trials published between 2014 and 2022. PCI trials included were late-phase trials and must investigate coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of trials that reported all of the COS-defined outcomes within their publication as either a primary, secondary or safety endpoint. The secondary outcomes included; the number of primary outcomes reported per study, the proportion of studies which use patient and public involvement (PPI) during trial design, outcome variability and outcome consistency. RESULTS: 9580 trials were screened and 115 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our study demonstrated that 55% (34/62) of PCI trials used a COS when it was available, compared with 40% (21/53) before the availability of a PCI COS set, p=0.121. Fewer primary outcomes were reported after the implementation of the COS, 2 compared with 2.3, p=0.014. There was no difference in the use of PPI between either group. There was a higher level of variability in outcomes reported before the availability of the COS, while the consistency of outcome reporting remained similar. CONCLUSION: The use of a COS in PCI trials is low. This study provides evidence that there still is a lack of awareness of the COS among those who design clinical trials. We also presented the inconsistency and heterogenicity in reporting clinical trial outcomes. Finally, there was a clear lack of PPI utilisation in PCI trials.

Methods used to develop the SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements.

OBJECTIVES: To describe, and explain the rationale for, the methods used and decisions made during development of the updated SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 reporting guidelines. METHODS: We developed SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 together to facilitate harmonization of the two guidelines, and incorporated content from key extensions. We conducted a scoping review of comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and compiled a list of other possible revisions based on existing SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions, other reporting guidelines, and personal communications. From this, we generated a list of potential modifications or additions to SPIRIT and CONSORT, which we presented to stakeholders for feedback in an international online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey results were discussed at an online expert consensus meeting attended by 30 invited international participants. We then drafted the updated SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists and revised them based on further feedback from meeting attendees. RESULTS: We compiled 83 suggestions for revisions or additions to SPIRIT and/or CONSORT from the scoping review and 85 from other sources, from which we generated 33 potential changes to SPIRIT (n = 5) or CONSORT (n = 28). Of 463 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 317 (68%) responded to Round 1, 303 (65%) to Round 2 and 290 (63%) to Round 3. Two additional potential checklist changes were added to the Delphi survey based on Round 1 comments. Overall, 14/35 (SPIRIT n = 0; CONSORT n = 14) proposed changes reached the predefined consensus threshold (≥80% agreement), and participants provided 3580 free-text comments. The consensus meeting participants agreed with implementing 11/14 of the proposed changes that reached consensus in the Delphi and supported implementing a further 4/21 changes (SPIRIT n = 2; CONSORT n = 2) that had not reached the Delphi threshold. They also recommended further changes to refine key concepts and for clarity. CONCLUSION: The forthcoming SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements will provide updated, harmonized guidance for reporting randomized controlled trial protocols and results, respectively. The simultaneous development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists has been informed by current empirical evidence and extensive input from stakeholders. We hope that this report of the methods used will be helpful for developers of future reporting guidelines.

Randomized controlled trials reporting patient-reported outcomes with no significant differences between study groups are potentially susceptible to unjustified conclusions-a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Ceiling effect may lead to misleading conclusions when using patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores as an outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential source of ceiling effect-related errors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting no differences in PROM scores between study groups. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of RCTs published in the top 10 orthopedic journals according to their impact factors was conducted, focusing on studies that reported no significant differences in outcomes between two study groups. All studies published during 2012-2022 that reported no differences in PROM outcomes and used parametric statistical approach were included. The aim was to investigate the potential source of ceiling effect-related errors-that is, when the ceiling effect suppresses the possible difference between the groups. The proportions of patients exceeding the PROM scales were simulated using the observed dispersion parameters based on the assumed normal distribution, and the differences in the proportions between the study groups were subsequently analyzed. RESULTS: After an initial screening of 2343 studies, 190 studies were included. The central 95% theoretical distribution of the scores exceeded the PROM scales in 140 (74%) of these studies. In 33 (17%) studies, the simulated patient proportions exceeding the scales indicated potential differences between the compared groups. CONCLUSION: It is common to have a mismatch between the chosen PROM instrument and the population being studied increasing the risk of an unjustified "no difference" conclusion due to a ceiling effect. Thus, a considerable ceiling effect should be considered a potential source of error.

Assessing conflict of interest reporting and quality of clinical trials on infant formula: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the quality, risk of bias, and conflicts of interest (COIs) of clinical trials conducted on the effects of fortified infant formula. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTTING: Systematic review including all randomized clinical trials targeting healthy children and using three arms: fortified infant formula; standard formula; and breastfeeding. We performed a descriptive analysis of the studies reviewed, assessed their quality using the "Risk of Bias 2- RoB 2" tool, and identified COIs. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies were included. All showed a high overall risk of bias, with this being especially noteworthy in the "deviations from intention to treat" and "missing outcome data" domains. Of the total included studies, 29 reported conclusions in favor of the fortified formula; 15 studies reported multiple conclusions that were either contradictory or not in line with the results. COIs with industry were identified in 33 studies, and in 17 studies, these conflicts were not declared in the appropriate section. CONCLUSION: From a methodological perspective, studies on fortified infant formula display low quality, made evident by the high risk of bias. Additionally, there are frequent COIs. These aspects must be considered by health professionals and the population when drawing up recommendations for the use of this product.

Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether clinical trial register (CTR) searches can accurately identify a greater number of completed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) than electronic bibliographic database (EBD) searches for systematic reviews of interventions, and to quantify the number of eligible ongoing trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed an evaluation study and based our search for RCTs on the eligibility criteria of a systematic review that focused on the underrepresentation of people with chronic kidney disease in cardiovascular RCTs. We conducted a combined search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible RCTs registered up to June 1, 2023. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for publications of eligible RCTs published up to June 5, 2023. Finally, we compared the search results to determine the extent to which the two sources identified the same RCTs. RESULTS: We included 92 completed RCTs. Of these, 81 had results available. Sixty-six completed RCTs with available results were identified by both sources (81% agreement [95% CI: 71-88]). We identified seven completed RCTs with results exclusively by CTR search (9% [95% CI: 4-17]) and eight exclusively by EBD search (10% [95% CI: 5-18]). Eleven RCTs were completed but lacked results (four identified by both sources (36% [95% CI: 15-65]), one exclusively by EBD search (9% [95% CI: 1-38]), and six exclusively by CTR search (55% [95% CI: 28-79])). Also, we identified 42 eligible ongoing RCTs: 16 by both sources (38% [95% CI: 25-53]) and 26 exclusively by CTR search (62% [95% CI: 47-75]). Lastly, we identified four RCTs of unknown status by both sources. CONCLUSION: CTR searches identify a greater number of completed RCTs than EBD searches. Both searches missed some included RCTs. Based on our case study, researchers (eg, information specialists, systematic reviewers) aiming to identify all available RCTs should continue to search both sources. Once the barriers to performing CTR searches alone are targeted, CTR searches may be a suitable alternative.

Misleading presentations in functional food trials led by contract research organizations were frequently observed in Japan: meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: The functional food market has experienced significant growth, leading to an uptick in clinical trials conducted by contract research organizations (CROs). Research focusing on CRO-managed trials and the communication of trial outcomes to the consumer market remains underexplored. This metaepidemiological study aims to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) facilitated by prominent CROs in Japan and to examine the quality of the representations used to convey their results to consumers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study focused on the food trials that were registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry or the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform by the top 5 CROs. Press releases of study results or advertisements of food products based on the study results were identified by conducting a Google search. The risk of bias in the RCT publications was independently assessed by 2 reviewers, who also evaluated the presence of "spin" in the abstracts and full texts. An assessment of "spin" in press releases/advertisements was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 76 RCT registrations, 32 RCT publications, and 11 press releases/advertisements were included. Approximately 72% of the RCT publications exhibited a high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting. "Spin" was present in the results of the abstract (72%), abstract conclusion (81%), full-text results (44%), and full-text conclusion (84%). "Spin" appeared in 73% of press releases/advertisements due to the selective outcome reporting. CONCLUSION: Functional food presentations in Japan frequently contained "spin." The Japanese government should more rigorously check whether food manufacturers report outcomes selectively.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

A System for Rapidly Yet Rigorously Evaluating the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: This tutorial describes a system for rapidly yet rigorously assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The system has 7 criteria, represented by the acronym "BIS FOES." The BIS FOES system directs readers to assess RCTs based on the following 7 criteria: the RCT's use (or not) of effective (1) Blinding; the RCT's use (or not) of (2) Intent-to-Treat Analysis; the RCT's (3) Size and other information reflecting the effectiveness of randomization; the amount of sample lost during (4) Follow-up; the (5) Outcomes examined by the RCT (specifically, the outcome measures used by the RCT), the (6) Effects reported (ie, the statistical and clinical significance of the RCT's primary, secondary, and safety findings), and any (7) Special Considerations (ie, additional strengths, limitations, or notable features of the RCT). The first 6 criteria are of basic importance to the assessment of every RCT, whereas the Special Considerations criteria allows the system to be expanded to include virtually any other important aspect of the RCT. This tutorial explains the importance of these criteria and how to assess them. This tutorial also describes how many BIS FOES criteria can be initially assessed from the RCT Abstract while also directing readers to specific locations in the RCT article where additional important information can be found. We hope that the BIS FOES system will help healthcare trainees, but also potentially clinicians, researchers, and the general public, rapidly and thoroughly assess RCTs.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of angina pectoris with integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine interventions: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine (ITCWM), as a representative type of complex intervention, is commonly used for the treatment of angina pectoris (AP) in clinical practice. However, it is unclear whether the details of ITCWM interventions, such as rationale for selection and design, implementation and potential interactions for different therapies, were adequately reported. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the reporting characteristics and quality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AP with ITCWM interventions. METHODS: Through a search of 7 electronic databases, we identified RCTs of AP with ITCWM interventions published in both English and Chinese from 1st Jan 2017 to 6th Aug 2022. The general characteristics of included studies were summarized, further, the quality of reporting was assessed based on three Checklists, including the CONSORT with 36 items (except for one item 1b about abstract), the CONSORT for abstracts (17 items), and a self-designed ITCWM-related checklist (21 items covering rationale and details of interventions, outcome assessment and analysis). The quality of RCTs published in English and Chinese, as well as journals and dissertations were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 451 eligible RCTs were included. For the reporting compliance, the mean score (95% Confidence Interval) of the CONSORT (72 scores in total), CONSORT for abstract (34 scores in total), and ITCWM-related (42 scores in total) checklists was 27.82 (27.44-28.19), 14.17 (13.98-14.37) and 21.06 (20.69-21.43), respectively. More than half items were evaluated as poor quality (reporting rate < 50%) among each Checklist. Moreover, the reporting quality of publications in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals in terms of the CONSORT items. The reporting of published dissertations was better than that in journal publications regarding both the CONSORT and ITCWM-specific items. CONCLUSION: Although the CONSORT appears to have enhanced the reporting of RCTs in AP, the quality of ITCWM specifics is variable and in need of improvement. Reporting guideline of the ITCWM recommendations should be developed thus to improve their quality.