The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials

To comprehend the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this article incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Comment. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from 4 stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, according to each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results

Development and validation of a simplified score to predict neonatal mortality risk among neonates weighing 2000 g or less (NMR-2000): an analysis using data from the UK and The Gambia.

BACKGROUND: 78% of neonatal deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, among which, more than 80% are in low birthweight babies. Existing neonatal mortality risk scores have primarily been developed for high-resource settings. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a score that is practicable for low-income and middle-income countries to predict in-hospital mortality among neonates born weighing 2000 g or less using datasets from the UK and The Gambia. METHODS: This analysis used retrospective data held in the UK National Neonatal Research Database from 187 neonatal units, and data from the Edward Francis Small Teaching Hospital (EFSTH), Banjul, The Gambia. In the UK dataset, neonates were excluded if birthweight was more than 2000 g; if the neonate was admitted aged more than 6 h or following discharge; if the neonate was stillborn; if the neonate died in delivery room; or if they were moribund on admission. The Gambian dataset included all neonates weighing less than 2000 g who were admitted between May 1, 2018, and Sept 30, 2019, who were screened for but not enrolled in the Early Kangaroo Mother Care Trial. 18 studies were reviewed to generate a list of 84 potential parameters. We derived a model to score in-hospital neonatal mortality risk using data from 55 029 admissions to a random sample of neonatal units in England and Wales from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2016. All candidate variables were included in a complete multivariable model, which was progressively simplified using reverse stepwise selection. We validated the new score (NMR-2000) on 40 329 admissions to the remaining units between the same dates and 14 818 admissions to all units from Jan 1, to Dec 31, 2017. We also validated the score on 550 neonates admitted to the EFSTH in The Gambia. FINDINGS: 18 candidate variables were selected for inclusion in the modelling process. The final model included three parameters: birthweight, admission oxygen saturation, and highest level of respiratory support within 24 h of birth. NMR-2000 had very good discrimination and goodness-of-fit across the UK samples, with a c-index of 0·8859-0·8930 and a Brier score of 0·0232-0·0271. Among Gambian neonates, the model had a c-index of 0·8170 and a Brier score of 0·1688. Predictive ability of the simplified integer score was similar to the model using regression coefficients, with c-indices of 0·8903 in the UK full validation sample and 0·8082 in the Gambian validation sample. INTERPRETATION: NMR-2000 is a validated mortality risk score for hospitalised neonates weighing 2000 g or less in settings where pulse oximetry is available. The score is accurate and simplified for bedside use. NMR-2000 requires further validation using a larger dataset from low-income and middle-income countries but has the potential to improve individual and population-level neonatal care resource allocation. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Wellcome Trust; and Joint Global Health Trials scheme of Department of Health and Social Care, Department for International Development, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust

Statistical Analysis of Microarray Data with Replicated Spots: A Case Study with Synechococcus WH8102

Until recently microarray experiments often involved relatively few arrays with only a single representation of each gene on each array. A complete genome microarray with multiple spots per gene (spread out spatially across the array) was developed in order to compare the gene expression of a marine cyanobacterium and a knockout mutant strain in a defined artificial seawater medium. Statistical methods were developed for analysis in the special situation of this case study where there is gene replication within an array and where relatively few arrays are used, which can be the case with current array technology. Due in part to the replication within an array, it was possible to detect very small changes in the levels of expression between the wild type and mutant strains. One interesting biological outcome of this experiment is the indication of the extent to which the phosphorus regulatory system of this cyanobacterium affects the expression of multiple genes beyond those strictly involved in phosphorus acquisition

Intracluster correlation coefficients in cluster randomized trials: empirical insights into how should they be reported

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, researchers are recognizing that there are many situations where the use of a cluster randomized trial may be more appropriate than an individually randomized trial. Similarly, the need for appropriate standards of reporting of cluster trials is more widely acknowledged. METHODS: In this paper, we describe the results of a survey to inform the appropriate reporting of the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) – the statistical measure of the clustering effect associated with a cluster randomized trial. RESULTS: We identified three dimensions that should be considered when reporting an ICC – a description of the dataset (including characteristics of the outcome and the intervention), information on how the ICC was calculated, and information on the precision of the ICC. CONCLUSIONS: This paper demonstrates the development of a framework for the reporting of ICCs. If adopted into routine practice, it has the potential to facilitate the interpretation of the cluster trial being reported and should help the development of new trials in the area

Recruitment to randomised trials : Strategies for Trial Enrolment and Participation Study. The STEPS study

Objectives: To identify factors associated with good and poor recruitment to multicentre trials. Data sources: Part A: database of trials started in or after 1994 and were due to end before 2003 held by the Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programmes. Part B: interviews with people playing a wide range of roles within four trials that their funders identified as ‘exemplars’. Part C: a large multicentre trial (the CRASH trial) of treatment for head injury. Review methods: The study used a number of different perspectives (‘multiple lenses’), and three components. Part A: an epidemiological review of a cohort of trials. Part B: case studies of trials that appeared to have particularly interesting lessons for recruitment. Part C: a single, in-depth case study to examine the feasibility of applying a businessorientated analytical framework as a reference model in future trials. Results: In the 114 trials found in Part A, less than one-third recruited their original target within the time originally specified, and around one-third had extensions. Factors observed more often in trials that recruited successfully were: having a dedicated trial manager, being a cancer or drug trial, and having interventions only available inside the trial. The most commonly reported strategies to improve recruitment were newsletters and mailshots, but it was not possible to assess whether they were causally linked to changes in recruitment. The analyses in Part B suggested that successful trials were those addressing clinically important questions at a timely point. The investigators were held in high esteem by the interviewees, and the trials were firmly grounded in existing clinical practices, so that the trial processes were not alien to clinical collaborators, and the results could be easily applicable to future practice. The interviewees considered that the needs of patients were well served by participation in the trials. Clinical collaborators particularly appreciated clear delineation of roles, which released them from much of the workload associated with trial participation. There was a strong feeling from interviewees that they were proud to be part of a successful team. This pride fed into further success. Good groundwork and excellent communications across many levels of complex trial structures were considered to be extremely important, including training components for learning about trial interventions and processes, and team building. All four trials had faced recruitment problems, and extra insights into the working of trials were afforded by strategies invoked to address them. The process of the case study in Part C was able to draw attention to a body of research and practice in a different discipline (academic business studies). It generated a reference model derived from a combination of business theory and work within CRASH. This enabled identification of weaker managerial components within CRASH, and initiatives to strengthen them. Although it is not clear, even within CRASH, whether the initiatives that follow from developing and applying the model will be effective in increasing recruitment or other aspects of the success of the trial, the reference model could provide a template, with potential for those managing other trials to use or adapt it, especially at foundation stages. The model derived from this project could also be used as a diagnostic tool if trials have difficulties and hence as a basis for deciding what type of remedial action to take. It may also be useful for auditing the progress of trials, such as during external review. Conclusions: While not producing sufficiently definitive results to make strong recommendations, the work here suggests that future trials should consider the different needs at different phases in the life of trials, and place greater emphasis on ‘conduct’ (the process of actually doing trials). This implies learning lessons from successful trialists and trial managers, with better training for issues relating to trial conduct. The complexity of large trials means that unanticipated difficulties are highly likely at some time in every trial. Part B suggested that successful trials were those flexible and robust enough to adapt to unexpected issues. Arguably, the trialists should also expect agility from funders within a proactive approach to monitoring ongoing trials. Further research into different recruitment patterns (including ‘failures’) may help to clarify whether the patterns seen in the ‘exemplar’ trials differ or are similar. The reference model from Part C needs to be further considered in other similar and different trials to assess its robustness. These and other strategies aimed at increasing recruitment and making trials more successful need to be formally evaluated for their effectiveness in a range of trials.Not peer reviewedPublisher PD

Using clinical audit to improve the quality of obstetric care at the Tibetan Delek Hospital in North India: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND: The Tibetan Delek Hospital is a small general hospital providing primary and secondary care for the Tibetan refugee community and the local Indian population in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, North India. In a baseline clinical audit of intrapartum care at the Tibetan Delek Hospital in 1996, high levels of postpartum haemorrhage associated with poor medical management of the third stage of labour, plus inappropriate transfer of women in labour were observed. These audit findings prompted the implementation of changes in the delivery of intrapartum care and follow-up audit cycles to monitor the ongoing effect of these changes. METHODS: The delivery of intrapartum care was modified in two ways. Firstly, nurses, midwives, and doctors were re-trained in the active management of the third stage of labour, which involved the administration of intramuscular syntocinon plus ergometrine with delivery of the anterior shoulder. Secondly partograms were introduced to help rationalise the management of labour, and in particular decisions about when to transfer women in labour. Follow up audits were conducted in 1997, 1998, and 2003 to quantify the effects of these changes. The key measures for improvement included the documented incidence of postpartum haemorrhage and the number of women transferred inappropriately for failure to progress in labour. RESULTS: A sustained reduction of approximately 50% in the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage was observed after the introduction of active management of the third stage of labour. The introduction of the routine use of partograms was associated with a more rational decision-making process regarding transfer during labour. CONCLUSION: Introducing and maintaining a clinical audit cycle can lead to improvements in the quality of obstetric care in a refugee population

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.