Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in the field of oncology and identify characteristics associated with better reporting quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All phase III trials published during 2005-2007 [before Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)] and 2010-2012 (after CONSORT) were searched electronically in MEDLINE/PubMed and retrieved for review using an 18-point overall quality score (OQS) for reporting based on the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by multivariate linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality. RESULTS: The mean OQS was 8.2 (range: 5-13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.0, 8.3) and 9.9 (range: 5-18; 95% CI: 9.7, 10.2) in the pre- and post-CONSORT periods, respectively. The method for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding details, and funding sources were missing in pre-CONSORT abstracts and insufficiently reported (<20%) in post-CONSORT abstracts. A high impact factor (P < 0.001) and the journal of publication (P < 0.001) were independent factors that were significantly associated with higher reporting quality on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in oncology showed suboptimal improvement over time. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines is needed to improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in oncology.

Reporting trends of outcome measures in phase II and phase III trials conducted in advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The methodology of conducting clinical trials in lung cancer has been challenged by the particular characteristics of new targeted agents. Thus, the choice of correct outcome measures and selection of best study designs are essential. We assessed the trends in reporting of outcome measures in phase II and phase III trials conducted in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: Data from September 2000 to September 2012 were extracted from the ClinicalTrials.gov database, and a descriptive-comparative analysis was performed to evaluate outcome-measures reporting for the two phases. RESULTS: We identified 459 phase II and 128 phase III trials that met our inclusion criteria. The frequently reported primary outcomes in phase II trials were progression-free survival (PFS; 32%), response rate (RR; 21.4%), and safety and toxicity (adverse events [AEs]; 14.6%). In contrast, overall survival (OS; 60.9%) and PFS (26.6%) were frequently reported primary outcomes in phase III trials. AEs were reported as a secondary outcome measure in 50.1 and 64.8% of phase II and phase III trials, respectively. Improvement in quality of life was identified as a secondary outcome measure significantly more frequently in phase III than in phase II trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified recent trends in reports of outcome measures in advanced-stage NSCLC phase II and phase III trials. The outcomes of this study can be valuable for investigators with minimal or some experience in the field of oncology who are conducting clinical research.

Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals.

BACKGROUND: The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search. RESULTS: We identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group.