Inconsistent selection of outcomes and measurement devices found in shoulder arthroplasty research: An analysis of studies on ClinicalTrials.gov.

INTRODUCTION: Recent evidence suggests a lack of standardization of shoulder arthroplasty outcomes. This issue is a limiting factor in systematic reviews. Core outcome set (COS) methodology could address this problem by delineating a minimum set of outcomes for measurement in all shoulder arthroplasty trials. METHODS: A ClinicalTrials.gov search yielded 114 results. Eligible trials were coded on the following characteristics: study status, study type, arthroplasty type, sample size, measured outcomes, outcome measurement device, specific metric of measurement, method of aggregation, outcome classification, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-six trials underwent data abstraction and data synthesis. Following abstraction, 383 shoulder arthroplasty outcomes were organized into 11 outcome domains. The most commonly reported outcomes were shoulder outcome score (n = 58), pain (n = 33), and quality of life (n = 15). The most common measurement devices were the Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score (n = 38) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (n = 33). Temporal patterns of outcome use was also found. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests the need for greater standardization of outcomes and instruments. The lack of consistency across trials indicates that developing a core outcome set for shoulder arthroplasty trials would be worthwhile. Such standardization would allow for more effective comparison across studies in systematic reviews, while at the same time consider important outcomes that may be underrepresented otherwise. This review of outcomes provides an evidence-based foundation for the development of a COS for shoulder arthroplasty.

Evaluating Industry Payments Among Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors.

Importance: It is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Objective: To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development. Main Outcomes and Measures: Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively. Results: Of the 49 authors evaluated, 40 received at least 1 reported industry payment, 31 accepted more than $1000, 25 accepted more than $10 000, and 18 accepted more than $50 000. Financial payments amounted to a mean of $157 177 per author. The total reimbursement among the 49 authors from 2013 to 2015 was $7 701 681. Of the 40 authors receiving payments, 22 did not accurately disclose industry relationships. Authors received payments from companies with products directly related to the guideline topic. Violations to the Administrative Regulations were found. Conclusions and Relevance: Dermatology clinical practice guideline authors received sizable industry payments and did not completely disclose these payments. The American Academy of Dermatology policies may benefit from stricter enforcement or the adoption of new standards.

Shoulder Arthroplasty Trials Are Infrequently Registered: A Systematic Review of Trials.

INTRODUCTION: With the intent of improving transparency in clinical research, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) established guidelines in 2005 regarding prospective clinical trial registration. This action worked to address bias related to selective outcome reporting in the medical literature. The objective of this study was to assess and characterize the quality of registration of clinical trials appearing in shoulder arthroplasty-related medical journals. METHODS: All randomized trials involving human subjects, pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty, published between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, and indexed in either PubMed or SportDISCUS were analyzed. We assessed the prevalence of registration, the timing of registration relative to patient enrollment periods, and the variable rates of orthopedic journal compliance with ICMJE and Food and Drug Administration clinical registration standards for our study. RESULTS: Of the 382 articles identified, 345 (90.3%) were excluded due to failure to meet inclusion criteria. From the remaining 37, only 12 (32.4%) studies were found to be registered in a trial registry. Ten (10/12, 83.3%) of these provided their registration information within the body of the article. None of the included studies from ICMJE-recognized journals were registered. From 34 included studies from non-ICMJE recognized journals, 12 (35.3%) were registered. CONCLUSION: The level of compliance with clinical trial registration guidelines in the decade since their release among shoulder arthroplasty trials in orthopedic journals is poor. Given the importance of the issue, the prevalence of the problem, and the fact that many other medical specialties have already made efforts to improve ICMJE compliance, further work on the part of orthopedic surgery journal authors and editors is needed to ensure the publication of unbiased results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000022487.