Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) require a protocol; however, numerous studies have highlighted protocol deficiencies. Reporting guidelines may improve the content of research reports and, if developed using robust methods, may increase the utility of reports to stakeholders. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review RCT protocol guidelines, to assess their characteristics and methods of development, and to compare recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of indexed literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to September 2010; reference lists; related article features; forward citation searching) and a targeted search of supplementary sources, including a survey of major trial funding agencies in six countries. Records were eligible if they described a content guideline in English or French relevant to RCT protocols. Guidelines were excluded if they specified content for protocols for trials of specific procedures or conditions or were intended to assess trial quality. We extracted guideline characteristics and methods. Content was mapped for a subset of guidelines that described development methods or had institutional endorsement. RESULTS: Forty guidelines published in journals, books and institutional reports were included in the review; seven were specific to RCT protocols. Only eight (20%) described development methods which included informal consensus methods, pilot testing and formal validation; no guideline described all of these methods. No guideline described formal consensus methods or a systematic retrieval of empirical evidence to inform its development. The guidelines included a median of 23 concepts per guideline (interquartile range (IQR) = 14 to 34; range = 7 to 109). Among the subset of guidelines (n = 23) for which content was mapped, approximately 380 concepts were explicitly addressed (median concepts per guideline IQR = 31 (24,80); range = 16 to 150); most concepts were addressed in a minority of guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidelines for RCT protocol content varied substantially in their recommendations. Few reports described the methods of guideline development, limiting comparisons of guideline validity. Given the importance of protocols to diverse stakeholders, we believe a systematically developed, evidence-informed guideline for clinical trial protocols is needed

A rainfall data intercomparison dataset of RADKLIM, RADOLAN, and rain gauge data for Germany

Quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) derived from weather radars provide spatially and temporally highly resolved rainfall data. However, they are also subject to systematic and random bias and various potential uncertainties and therefore require thorough quality checks before usage. The dataset described in this paper is a collection of precipitation statistics calculated from the hourly nationwide German RADKLIM and RADOLAN QPEs provided by the German Weather Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD)), which were combined with rainfall statistics derived from rain gauge data for intercomparison. Moreover, additional information on parameters that can potentially influence radar data quality, such as the height above sea level, information on wind energy plants and the distance to the next radar station, were included in the dataset. The resulting two point shapefiles are readable with all common GIS and constitutes a spatially highly resolved rainfall statistics geodataset for the period 2006 to 2017, which can be used for statistical rainfall analyses or for the derivation of model inputs. Furthermore, the publication of this data collection has the potential to benefit other users who intend to use precipitation data for any purpose in Germany and to identify the rainfall dataset that is best suited for their application by a straightforward comparison of three rainfall datasets without any tedious data processing and georeferencing

Ítems de referencia para publicar Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: La Declaración PRISMA

Original citation: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and not necessary endorse it. Los autores originales no han revisado ni verificado la traducción del manuscrito al español, y no necesariamente están de acuerdo con su contenido. Original article published: July 21, 2009 Copyright: © 2009 Moher et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the PLoS Medicine Web site (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/) and will be also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/). Spanish translation: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, Johana Prieto, Maria Manera, Eduard Baladia, Rodrigo Martínez-Rodríguez y Julio Basulto. Corresponding author of the spanish translation: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto ([email protected])Artículo original: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and not necessary endorse it. Los autores originales no han revisado ni verificado la traducción del manuscrito al español, y no necesariamente están de acuerdo con su contenido.Publicación del artículo original: 21 Julio 2009 Derechos: © 2009 Moher et al. Este es un artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo las condiciones de The Creative Commons Attribution License, que permite el uso ilimitado, su distribución y reproducción en cualquier medio, siempre y cuando se acredite el autor y su fuente original.Procedencia: No comisionado; revisión científica externa. Para promover la publicación de la Declaración PRISMA, el artículo se ha publicado como acceso abierto y se puede encontrar en la página web de PLoS Medicine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/) y también se ha publicado en Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, y Open Medicine. Los autores tienen unánimemente los derechos de este artículo. Para más detalles de su uso ver la página web de PRISMA (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).Traducción y adaptación al español: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, Johana Prieto, Maria Manera, Eduard Baladia, Rodrigo Martínez-Rodríguez y Julio Basulto.Autor de correspondencia de la traducción: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto ([email protected]

Comparative effectiveness of monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND: Hypertension has been cited as the most common attributable risk factor for death worldwide, and in Canada more than one of every five adults had this diagnosis in 2007. In addition to different lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, there exist many pharmaco-therapies from different drug classes which can be used to lower blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of serious clinical outcomes. In moderate and severe cases, more than one agent may be used. The optimal mono- and combination therapies for mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension are unclear, and clinical guidelines provide different recommendations for first line therapy. The objective of this review is to explore the relative benefits and safety of different pharmacotherapies for management of non-diabetic patients with hypertension, whether of a mild or moderate to severe nature. METHODS/DESIGN: Searches involving MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. The outcomes of interest include myocardial infarction, stroke, incident diabetes, heart failure, overall and cardiovascular related death, and important side effects (cancers, depression, syncopal episodes/falls and sexual dysfunction). Randomized controlled trials will be sought. Two reviewers will independently screen relevant reviews, titles and abstracts resulting from the literature search, and also potentially relevant full-text articles in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and quality will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussion. Random effect pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be conducted where deemed appropriate. Analyses will be geared toward studying treatment of mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension separately. DISCUSSION: Our systematic review results will assess the extent of currently available evidence for single agent and multi-agent pharmacotherapies in patients with mild, moderate and severe hypertension, and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important clinical outcomes for clinicians, decision makers and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD4201300445

Checking whether there is an increased risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and other cancers with specific modern immunosuppression regimens in renal transplantation: Protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing renal transplant procedures require multi-agent immunosuppressive regimens both short term (induction phase) and long term (maintenance phase) to minimize the risk of organ rejection. There are several drug classes and agents for immunosuppression. Use of these agents may increase the risk of different harms including not only infections, but also malignancies including post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. There is a need to identify which regimens minimize the risk of such outcomes. The objective of this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies is to explore whether certain modern regimens of immunosuppression used to prevent organ rejection in renal transplant patients are associated with an increased risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and other malignancies. METHODS/DESIGN: ‘Modern’ regimens were defined to be those evaluated in controlled studies beginning in 1990 or later. An electronic literature search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials has been designed by an experienced information specialist and peer reviewed by a second information specialist. Study selection and data collection will be performed by two reviewers. The outcomes of interest will include post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and other incident forms of malignancy occurring in adult renal transplant patients. Network meta-analyses of data from randomized and observational studies will be performed where judged appropriate based on a review of the clinical and methodological features of included studies. A sequential approach to meta-analysis will be used to combine data from different designs. DISCUSSION: Our systematic review will include both single-agent and multi-agent modern pharmacotherapy regimens in patients undergoing renal transplantation. It will synthesize malignancy outcomes. Our work will also add to the development of methods for network meta-analysis across study designs to assess treatment safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD4201300695

Factors Within the Endoneurial Microenvironment Act to Suppress Tumorigenesis of MPNST

Background: Deciphering avenues to adequately control malignancies in the peripheral nerve will reduce the need for current, largely-ineffective, standards of care which includes the use of invasive, nerve-damaging, resection surgery. By avoiding the need for en bloc resection surgery, the likelihood of retained function or efficient nerve regeneration following the control of tumor growth is greater, which has several implications for long-term health and well-being of cancer survivors. Nerve tumors can arise as malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) that result in a highly-aggressive form of soft tissue sarcoma. Although the precise cause of MPNST remains unknown, studies suggest that dysregulation of Schwann cells, mediated by the microenvironment, plays a key role in tumor progression. This study aimed to further characterize the role of local microenvironment on tumor progression, with an emphasis on identifying factors within tumor suppressive environments that have potential for therapeutic application.Methods: We created GFP-tagged adult induced tumorigenic Schwann cell lines (iSCs) and transplanted them into various in vivo microenvironments. We used immunohistochemistry to document the response of iSCs and performed proteomics analysis to identify local factors that might modulate divergent iSC behaviors.Results: Following transplant into the skin, spinal cord or epineurial compartment of the nerve, iSCs formed tumors closely resembling MPNST. In contrast, transplantation into the endoneurial compartment of the nerve significantly suppressed iSC proliferation. Proteomics analysis revealed a battery of factors enriched within the endoneurial compartment, of which one growth factor of interest, ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) was capable of preventing iSCs proliferation in vitro.Conclusions: This dataset describes a novel approach for identifying biologically relevant therapeutic targets, such as CNTF, and highlights the complex relationship that tumor cells have with their local microenvironment. This study has significant implications for the development of future therapeutic strategies to fight MPNSTs, and, consequently, improve peripheral nerve regeneration and nerve function

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of stakeholders. We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published SRs and examine them in terms of a broad range of epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics, including emerging aspects not previously examined. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline for SRs indexed during November 2004 and written in English. Citations were screened and those meeting our inclusion criteria were retained. Data were collected using a 51-item data collection form designed to assess the epidemiological and reporting details and the bias-related aspects of the reviews. The data were analyzed descriptively. In total 300 SRs were identified, suggesting a current annual publication rate of about 2,500, involving more than 33,700 separate studies including one-third of a million participants. The majority (272 [90.7%]) of SRs were reported in specialty journals. Most reviews (213 [71.0%]) were categorized as therapeutic, and included a median of 16 studies involving 1,112 participants. Funding sources were not reported in more than one-third (122 [40.7%]) of the reviews. Reviews typically searched a median of three electronic databases and two other sources, although only about two-thirds (208 [69.3%]) of them reported the years searched. Most (197/295 [66.8%]) reviews reported information about quality assessment, while few (68/294 [23.1%]) reported assessing for publication bias. A little over half (161/300 [53.7%]) of the SRs reported combining their results statistically, of which most (147/161 [91.3%]) assessed for consistency across studies. Few (53 [17.7%]) SRs reported being updates of previously completed reviews. No review had a registration number. Only half (150 [50.0%]) of the reviews used the term “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” in the title or abstract. There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: SRs are now produced in large numbers, and our data suggest that the quality of their reporting is inconsistent. This situation might be improved if more widely agreed upon evidence-based reporting guidelines were endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals. These results substantiate the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically

Prognostic model for patient survival in primary anorectal mucosal melanoma:stage at presentation determines relevance of histopathologic features

Pathological staging of primary anorectal mucosal melanoma is often performed according to the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines for cutaneous melanoma, as an anorectal melanoma-specific staging system does not exist. However, it remains unknown whether prognostic factors derived for cutaneous melanoma also stratify risk in anorectal melanoma. We retrospectively determined correlations between clinicopathological parameters and disease-specific survival in 160 patients. Patients were grouped by clinical stage at presentation (localized disease, regional or distant metastases). Cox proportional hazards regression models determined associations with disease-specific survival. We also summarized the somatic mutations identified in a subset of tumors analyzed for hotspot mutations in cancer-associated gene panels. Most of the patients were white (82%) and female (61%). The median age was 62 years. With a median follow-up of 1.63 years, median disease-specific survival was 1.75 years, and 121 patients (76%) died of anorectal melanoma. Patients presenting with regional (34%) or distant metastases (24%) had significantly shorter disease-specific survival compared to those with disease localized to the anorectum (42%). Of the 71 anorectal melanoma tumors analyzed for hotspot genetic alterations, somatic mutations involving the KIT gene (24%) were most common followed by NRAS (19%). Increasing primary tumor thickness, lymphovascular invasion, and absence of regression also correlated with shorter disease-specific survival. Primary tumor parameters correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients presenting with localized disease (tumor thickness) or regional metastases (tumor thickness, absence of regression, and lymphovascular invasion), but not in patients presenting with distant metastases. Grouping of patients according to a schema based on modifications of the 8th edition AJCC cutaneous melanoma staging system stratified survival in anorectal melanoma. Our findings support stage-specific associations between primary tumor parameters and disease-specific survival in anorectal melanoma. Moreover, the AJCC cutaneous melanoma staging system and minor modifications of it predicted survival among anorectal melanoma patients

Short-term treatment with multi-drug regimens combining BRAF/MEK-targeted therapy and immunotherapy results in durable responses in Braf-mutated melanoma

Targeted and immunotherapy regimens have revolutionized the treatment of advanced melanoma patients. Despite this, only a subset of patients respond durably. Recently, combination strategies of BRAF/MEK inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy (α-CTLA-4 or α-PD-1) have increased the rate of durable responses. Based on evidence from our group and others, these therapies appear synergistic, but at the cost of significant toxicity. We know from other treatment paradigms (e.g. hematologic malignancies) that combination strategies with multi-drug regimens (\u3e4 drugs) are associated with more durable disease control. To better understand the mechanism of these improved outcomes, and to identify and prioritize new strategies for testing, we studied several multi-drug regimens combining BRAF/MEK targeted therapy and immunotherapy combinations in a Braf-mutant murine melanoma model (BrafV600E/Pten−/−). Short-term treatment with α-PD-1 and α-CTLA-4 monotherapies were relatively ineffective, while treatment with α-OX40 demonstrated some efficacy [17% of mice with no evidence of disease, (NED), at 60-days]. Outcomes were improved in the combined α-OX40/α-PD-1 group (42% NED). Short-term treatment with quadruplet therapy of immunotherapy doublets in combination with targeted therapy [dabrafenib and trametinib (DT)] was associated with excellent tumor control, with 100% of mice having NED after combined DT/α-CTLA-4/α-PD-1 or DT/α-OX40/α-PD-1. Notably, tumors from mice in these groups demonstrated a high proportion of effector memory T cells, and immunologic memory was maintained with tumor re-challenge. Together, these data provide important evidence regarding the potential utility of multi-drug therapy in treating advanced melanoma and suggest these models can be used to guide and prioritize combinatorial treatment strategies