The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. RESULTS: Of the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane SRs had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSIONS: SRs supporting CPGs focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of SRs being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists will likely increase the quality of SRs, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma CPGs.

Assessment of Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials for Interventions of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has debilitating effects on quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assess changes in quality of life and serve as subjective measurements of patient experience. The aim of this study is to assess the completeness of PRO reporting within randomized controlled trials with interventions pertaining to PTSD. METHODS: This cross-sectional, meta-epidemiological study assessed the completeness of PRO reporting in RCTs investigating PTSD interventions. We searched multiple databases for published RCTs of PTSD interventions that used PROs as a primary or secondary outcome. We assessed PRO completeness using the PRO adaptation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT). We used a bivariate regression model to determine the association between trial characteristics and the completeness of reporting. RESULTS: After an initial screening of 5906 articles, our final sample of RCTs for inclusion was 43. The mean completeness of reporting of PROs was 58.4% (SD = 14.50). We found no significant associations between trial characteristics and completeness of the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. CONCLUSION: Reporting of PROs was often incomplete among RCTs focused on PTSD. We believe that adherence to CONSORT-PRO will improve both PRO reporting and implementation into clinical practice to improve assessment of quality of life.

Evaluating reporting of patient-reported outcomes in peptic ulcer disease: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) can significantly affect quality of life (QoL). These QoL outcomes are often patient-reported, and their inclusion in clinical trials supplements efficacy outcomes to provide the patients' perspective. This assese existing literature for completeness of PRO reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PUD. METHODS: This meta-epidemiological, cross-sectional study that assessed completeness of reporting among RCTs addressing management of PUD. We conducted a comprehensive literature search] to identify RCTs with a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. These RCTs were assessed for completion of reporting according to the PRO adaptation of CONSORT checklist. RCTs were also assessed for Risk of Bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. RESULTS: Masked, duplicate screening of 829 results = yielded a final sample of 35 RCTs. The average completeness of reporting was 32.9% according to the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. Twenty-one (of 35; 60%) of the RCTs were assessed as having 'high' risk of bias and nine (of 35; 25.71%) were assessed as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias. Bivariate regression found completeness of reporting to be positively associated with increased PRO follow-up duration, sample size, and studies with conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: RCTs examining the treatment and prevention of PUD with PROs as an outcome measure have deficient reporting and 'high' risk of bias according to the CONSORT-PRO and Cochrane RoB guidelines.