Negative pressure wound therapy: Potential publication bias caused by lack of access to unpublished study results data

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is widely applied, although the evidence base is weak. Previous reviews on medical interventions have shown that conclusions based on published data alone may no longer hold after consideration of unpublished data. The main objective of this study was to identify unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on NPWT within the framework of a systematic review.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RCTs comparing NPWT with conventional wound therapy were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library. Every database was searched from inception to May 2005. The search was updated in December 2006. Reference lists of original articles and systematic reviews, as well as congress proceedings and online trial registers, were screened for clues to unpublished RCTs. Manufacturers of NPWT devices and authors of conference abstracts were contacted and asked to provide study information. Trials were considered nonrandomised if concealment of allocation to treatment groups was classified as "inadequate". The study status was classified as "completed", "discontinued", "ongoing" or "unclear". The publication status of completed or discontinued RCTs was classified as "published" if a full-text paper on final study results (completed trials) or interim results (discontinued trials) was available, and "unpublished" if this was not the case. The type of sponsorship was also noted for all trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 28 RCTs referring to at least 2755 planned or analysed patients met the inclusion criteria: 13 RCTs had been completed, 6 had been discontinued, 6 were ongoing, and the status of 3 RCTs was unclear. Full-text papers were available on 30% of patients in the 19 completed or discontinued RCTs (495 analysed patients in 10 published RCTs vs. 1154 planned patients in 9 unpublished RCTs). Most information about conference abstracts and unpublished study information referring to trials that were unpublished at the time these documents were generated was obtained from the manufacturer Kinetic Concepts Inc. (KCI) (19 RCTs), followed by The Cochrane Library (18) and a systematic review (15). We were able to obtain some information on the methods of unpublished RCTs, but results data were either not available or requests for results data were not answered; the results of unpublished RCTs could therefore not be considered in the review. One manufacturer, KCI, sponsored the majority of RCTs (19/28; 68%). The sponsorship of the remaining trials was unclear.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Multi-source comprehensive searches identify unpublished RCTs. However, lack of access to unpublished study results data raises doubts about the completeness of the evidence base on NPWT.</p

Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary study selection between systematic reviews is inconsistent, and reviews on the same topic may reach different conclusions. Our main objective was to compare systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) regarding their agreement in primary study selection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis was conducted within the framework of a systematic review (a full review and a subsequent rapid report) on NPWT prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).</p> <p>For the IQWiG review and rapid report, 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were searched to identify systematic reviews and primary studies on NPWT versus conventional wound therapy in patients with acute or chronic wounds. All databases were searched from inception to December 2006.</p> <p>For the present analysis, reviews on NPWT were classified as eligible systematic reviews if multiple sources were systematically searched and the search strategy was documented. To ensure comparability between reviews, only reviews published in or after December 2004 and only studies published before June 2004 were considered.</p> <p>Eligible reviews were compared in respect of the methodology applied and the selection of primary studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 5 systematic reviews (including the IQWiG review) and 16 primary studies were analysed. The reviews included between 4 and 13 primary studies published before June 2004. Two reviews considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Three reviews considered both RCTs and non-RCTs. The overall agreement in study selection between reviews was 96% for RCTs (24 of 25 options) and 57% for non-RCTs (12 of 21 options). Due to considerable disagreement in the citation and selection of non-RCTs, we contacted the review authors for clarification (this was not initially planned); all authors or institutions responded. According to published information and the additional information provided, most differences between reviews arose from variations in inclusion criteria or inter-author study classification, as well as from different reporting styles (citation or non-citation) for excluded studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The citation and selection of primary studies differ between systematic reviews on NPWT, particularly with regard to non-RCTs. Uniform methodological and reporting standards need to be applied to ensure comparability between reviews as well as the validity of their conclusions.</p