Reporting of harms outcomes: a comparison of journal publications with unpublished clinical study reports of orlistat trials

Background The quality of harms reporting in journal publications is often poor, which can impede the risk-benefit interpretation of a clinical trial. Clinical study reports can provide more reliable, complete, and informative data on harms compared to the corresponding journal publication. This case study compares the quality and quantity of harms data reported in journal publications and clinical study reports of orlistat trials. Methods Publications related to clinical trials of orlistat were identified through comprehensive literature searches. A request was made to Roche (Genentech; South San Francisco, CA, USA) for clinical study reports related to the orlistat trials identified in our search. We compared adverse events, serious adverse events, and the reporting of 15 harms criteria in both document types and compared meta-analytic results using data from the clinical study reports against the journal publications. Results Five journal publications with matching clinical study reports were available for five independent clinical trials. Journal publications did not always report the complete list of identified adverse events and serious adverse events. We found some differences in the magnitude of the pooled risk difference between both document types with a statistically significant risk difference for three adverse events and two serious adverse events using data reported in the clinical study reports; these events were of mild intensity and unrelated to the orlistat. The CONSORT harms reporting criteria were often satisfied in the methods section of the clinical study reports (70–90 % of the methods section criteria satisfied in the clinical study reports compared to 10–50 % in the journal publications), but both document types satisfied 80–100 % of the results section criteria, albeit with greater detail being provided in the clinical study reports. Conclusions In this case study, journal publications provided insufficient information on harms outcomes of clinical trials and did not specify that a subset of harms data were being presented. Clinical study reports often present data on harms, including serious adverse events, which are not reported or mentioned in the journal publications. Therefore, clinical study reports could support a more complete, accurate, and reliable investigation, and researchers undertaking evidence synthesis of harm outcomes should not rely only on incomplete published data that are presented in the journal publications

How closely related are financial satisfaction and subjective well-being? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Financial satisfaction is considered one of the determinants of Subjective well-being (SWB), yet the assumption that financial satisfaction is closely associated with SWB has not been tested across nations. This first systematic review and meta-analysis examined the association between financial satisfaction and SWB and to test whether any association is affected by key operational and methodological factors. Following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, a systematic (Web of Science, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Google scholar) search was conducted (January 1980–August 2019). Meta-analyses, meta-regressions and subgroup analysis using random-effects models were performed. 24 studies were included in the meta-analysis and the overall association between financial satisfaction and SWB was medium, significant and positive (pooled r = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.38–0.44; Q = 7108, I2 = 99.7%, p < 0.001). Univariate meta-regressions showed that studies conducted in countries that were more developed (B = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.24, I2 = 79%, R2 = 51%), and had used multiple items (B = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.18, I2 = 72%, R2 = 30%) instead of single were significantly associated with better financial satisfaction and greater SWB. Our findings highlight the need for designing better tools to measure these core societal concepts; to improve financial satisfaction and hence SWB across the globe

Evaluating progestogens for prevention of preterm birth international collaborative (EPPPIC) individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis : protocol

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the most common cause of death and harm to newborn babies. Babies that are born early may have difficulties at birth and experience health problems during early childhood. Despite extensive study, there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of progestogen (medications that are similar to the natural hormone progesterone) in preventing or delaying preterm birth, and in improving birth outcomes. The Evaluating Progestogen for Prevention of Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC) project aims to reduce uncertainty about the specific conditions in which progestogen may (or may not) be effective in preventing or delaying preterm birth and improving birth outcomes. METHODS: The design of the study involves international collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis comprising systematic review, re-analysis, and synthesis of trial datasets. Inclusion criteria are as follows: randomized controlled trials comparing progestogen versus placebo or non-intervention, or comparing different types of progestogen, in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth. Main outcomes are as follows; fetal/infant death, preterm birth or fetal death (<=37 weeks, <=34 weeks, <= 28 weeks), serious neonatal complications or fetal/infant death, neurosensory disability (measured at 18 months or later) or infant/child death, important maternal morbidity, or maternal death. In statistical methods, IPD will be synthesized across trials using meta-analysis. Both 'two-stage' models (where effect estimates are calculated for each trial and subsequently pooled in a meta-analysis) and 'one-stage' models (where all IPD from all trials are analyzed in one step, while accounting for the clustering of participants within trials) will be used. If sufficient suitable data are available, a network meta-analysis will compare all types of progesterone and routes of administration extending the one-stage models to include multiple treatment arms. DISCUSSION: EPPPIC is an international collaborative project being conducted by the forming EPPPIC group, which includes trial investigators, an international secretariat, and the research project team. Results, which are intended to contribute to improvements in maternal and child health, are expected to be publicly available in mid 2018. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017068299

Evaluating Health Research Capacity Building: An Evidence-Based Tool

Bates and colleagues describe the development of a tool to assess capacity-building programs in health research, which they used in Kumasi, Ghana

Evaluation of a learner-designed course for teaching health research skills in Ghana

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In developing countries the ability to conduct locally-relevant health research and high quality education are key tools in the fight against poverty. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel UK accredited, learner-designed research skills course delivered in a teaching hospital in Ghana.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Study participants were 15 mixed speciality health professionals from Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana. Effectiveness measures included process, content and outcome indicators to evaluate changes in learners' confidence and competence in research, and assessment of the impact of the course on changing research-related thinking and behaviour. Results were verified using two independent methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>14/15 learners gained research competence assessed against UK Quality Assurance Agency criteria. After the course there was a 36% increase in the groups' positive responses to statements concerning confidence in research-related attitudes, intentions and actions. The greatest improvement (45% increase) was in learners' actions, which focused on strengthening institutional research capacity. 79% of paired before/after responses indicated positive changes in individual learners' research-related attitudes (n = 53), 81% in intention (n = 52) and 85% in action (n = 52). The course had increased learners' confidence to start and manage research, and enhanced life-long skills such as reflective practice and self-confidence. Doing their own research within the work environment, reflecting on personal research experiences and utilising peer support and pooled knowledge were critical elements that promoted learning.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Learners in Ghana were able to design and undertake a novel course that developed individual and institutional research capacity and met international standards. Learning by doing and a supportive peer community at work were critical elements in promoting learning in this environment where tutors were scarce. Our study provides a model for delivering and evaluating innovative educational interventions in developing countries to assess whether they meet external quality criteria and achieve their objectives.</p

Diagnoses, problems and healthcare interventions amongst older people with an unscheduled hospital admission who have concurrent mental health problems: a prevalence study

Background Frail older people with mental health problems including delirium, dementia and depression are often admitted to general hospitals. However, hospital admission may cause distress, and can be associated with complications. Some commentators suggest that their healthcare needs could be better met elsewhere. Methods We studied consecutive patients aged 70 or older admitted for emergency medical or trauma care to an 1800 bed general hospital which provided sole emergency medical and trauma services for its local population. Patients were screened for mental health problems, and those screening positive were invited to take part. 250 participants were recruited and a sub-sample of 53 patients was assessed by a geriatrician for diagnoses, impairments and disabilities, healthcare interventions and outstanding needs. Results Median age was 86 years, median Mini-Mental State Examination score at admission was 16/30, and 45% had delirium. 19% lived in a care home prior to admission. All the patients were complex. A wide range of main admission diagnoses was recorded, and these were usually complicated by falls, immobility, pain, delirium, dehydration or incontinence. There was a median of six active diagnoses, and eight active problems. One quarter of problems was unexplained. A median of 13 interventions was recorded, and a median of a further four interventions suggested by the geriatrician. Those with more severe cognitive impairment had no less medical need. Conclusions This patient group, admitted to hospital in the United Kingdom, had numerous healthcare problems, and by implication, extensive healthcare needs. Patients with simpler conditions were not identified, but may have already been rapidly discharged or redirected to non-hospital services by the time assessments were made. To meet the needs of this group outside the hospital would need considerable investment in medical, nursing, therapy and diagnostic facilities. In the meantime, acute hospitals should adapt to deliver comprehensive geriatric assessment, and provide for their mental health needs

Serious adverse events reported in placebo randomised controlled trials of oral naltrexone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist used in many different conditions, both licensed and unlicensed. It is used at widely varying doses from 3 - 250 mg. The aim of this review was to evaluate the safety of oral naltrexone by examining the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of naltrexone compared to placebo. Methods A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, other databases and clinical trials registries was undertaken up to March 2018. Parallel placebo-controlled RCTs longer than 4 weeks published after 1/1/2001, of oral naltrexone at any dose were selected. Any condition and age group were included, excluding only studies for opioid or ex-opioid users, due to possible opioid/opioid antagonist interactions. The systematic review used the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook throughout. Numerical data was independently extracted by two people and cross-checked. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses were performed using Stata 15 and R, using random and fixed effects models throughout. Results Eighty-nine RCTs with 11194 participants were found, studying alcohol use disorders, various psychiatric disorders, impulse control disorders, other addictions, obesity, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia and cancers. Twenty-six studies (4,960 participants) recorded SAEs occurring by arm of study. There was no evidence of increased risk of SAEs for naltrexone compared to placebo, relative risk (RR) 0.84 (95% CI: 0.66 to 1.06). Sensitivity analyses pooling risk differences supported this conclusion (RD = -0.01 (-0.02, 0.00)) and subgroup analyses showed that results were consistent across different doses and disease groups. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged high using the GRADE criteria. Conclusions Naltrexone does not appear to increase the risk of SAEs over placebo. These findings confirm the safety of naltrexone when used in licensed indications and encourage investments to undertake efficacy studies in unlicensed indications

Reporting of harms outcomes: a comparison of journal publications with unpublished clinical study reports of orlistat trials

BACKGROUND: The quality of harms reporting in journal publications is often poor, which can impede the risk-benefit interpretation of a clinical trial. Clinical study reports can provide more reliable, complete, and informative data on harms compared to the corresponding journal publication. This case study compares the quality and quantity of harms data reported in journal publications and clinical study reports of orlistat trials. METHODS: Publications related to clinical trials of orlistat were identified through comprehensive literature searches. A request was made to Roche (Genentech; South San Francisco, CA, USA) for clinical study reports related to the orlistat trials identified in our search. We compared adverse events, serious adverse events, and the reporting of 15 harms criteria in both document types and compared meta-analytic results using data from the clinical study reports against the journal publications. RESULTS: Five journal publications with matching clinical study reports were available for five independent clinical trials. Journal publications did not always report the complete list of identified adverse events and serious adverse events. We found some differences in the magnitude of the pooled risk difference between both document types with a statistically significant risk difference for three adverse events and two serious adverse events using data reported in the clinical study reports; these events were of mild intensity and unrelated to the orlistat. The CONSORT harms reporting criteria were often satisfied in the methods section of the clinical study reports (70–90 % of the methods section criteria satisfied in the clinical study reports compared to 10–50 % in the journal publications), but both document types satisfied 80–100 % of the results section criteria, albeit with greater detail being provided in the clinical study reports. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, journal publications provided insufficient information on harms outcomes of clinical trials and did not specify that a subset of harms data were being presented. Clinical study reports often present data on harms, including serious adverse events, which are not reported or mentioned in the journal publications. Therefore, clinical study reports could support a more complete, accurate, and reliable investigation, and researchers undertaking evidence synthesis of harm outcomes should not rely only on incomplete published data that are presented in the journal publications. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1327-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Cluster Analysis in Finance

Reporting of SAEs.xls’, Table S3 Reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs) in Clinical study reports (CSRs) and journal articles for Olistat trials. (XLS 65 kb