Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

PURPOSE: Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). RESULTS: Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Gabapentin versus dexchlorpheniramine as treatment for uremic pruritus: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Uremic pruritus is a common symptom in chronic renal failure patients with undefined pathophysiology. Initial treatment involves topical therapy mainly in the form of moisturizers, however, in many cases, this is not sufficient to relieve itching. Systemic adjuvant therapy is therefore necessary, which commonly includes oral antihistamines, with limited success. Positive effects have been reported for gabapentin. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin vs. dexchlorpheniramine in reducing uremic pruritus. MATERIALS & METHODS: A randomized, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial for haemodialysis patients with persistent pruritus was performed. Pre-randomisation, cold cream was used for 15 days by 71 participants. Those with pruritus who remained in the study (60 patients) were randomised to receive gabapentin (30 patients; GABA group) or dexchlorpheniramine (30 patients; DEX group) for 21 days. The primary outcome was the decrease in pruritus score and improvement in quality of life. RESULTS: After cold cream use, the participants demonstrated a 37.5% median reduction in Visual Analogue Scale (p<0.01) and a 50% reduction in Quality of Life in Dermatology (DLQI) score (p<0.01). There was an additional reduction of pruritus in both groups (p<0.01), with no difference between the two (p>0.7). The median DLQI was reduced from 2 to 1 in the GABA group and from 2 to 0 in the DEX group. Nineteen patients (32%) reported mild/moderate side effects without differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Uremic pruritus was reduced upon treatment with gabapentin or dexchlorpheniramine with good safety profiles; no difference was observed between the two treatments.

Fibrin gel versus papain gel in the healing of chronic venous ulcers: A double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Objectives Compare the efficacy and safety of fibrin gel to 8% papain gel for wound dressing of venous ulcers. Method Patients with chronic venous ulcers were randomly assigned to one in three groups: Group 1-fibrin gel; Group 2-8% papain gel; Group 3-carbopol gel (control). Patients were seen every 15 days during 2 months, verifying reduction of the ulcer area, local infection, exudation, and epithelization. All serious or nonserious adverse events were recorded. Results Fifty-five patients (total of 63 ulcers) were randomly distributed in three groups (G1 = 21; G2 = 19; G3 = 23). No patient was excluded or discontinued treatment throughout the study. The areas of the ulcers were similarly reduced in all groups (14.3%, 21.1%, and 30.4% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively), and all had significant reduction in exudation and contamination. Conclusion The data demonstrate that neither fibrin gel nor papain gel were able to improve the process of ulcer-healing, as compared to control.