Likely country of origin in publications on randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials during the last 60 years

BACKGROUND: The number of publications on clinical trials is unknown as well as the countries publishing most trial reports. To try to examine these questions we performed an ecological study. METHODS: We searched the 454,449 records on publications in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005 (CD-ROM version) for possible country of origin. We inspected a random sample of 906 records for information on country and type of trial. RESULTS: There was an exponential growth of publications on randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials since 1946, but the growth seems to have seized since 2000. We identified the possible country of origin of 210,974 publications (46.4%). The USA is leading with about 46,789 publications followed by UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, and France. Sweden becomes the leader with 891 publications per million inhabitants during the last 60 years followed by Denmark (n = 864), New Zealand (n = 791), Finland (n = 781), the Netherlands (n = 570), Switzerland (n = 547), and Norway (n = 543). In depth assessment of the random sample backed these findings. CONCLUSION: Many records lacked country of origin, even after the additional scrutiny. The number of publications on clinical trials increased exponentially until the turn of the century. Rather small, democratic, and wealthy countries take the lead when the number of publications on clinical trials is calculated based on million inhabitants. If all countries produced the same number of trials as these countries, this could mean thousands of new effective treatments during the next 60 years

The fading of reported effectiveness. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The "real" effect size of a medical therapy is constant over time. In contrast, the effect size reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may change over time because the sum of all kinds of bias influencing the reported effectiveness is not necessarily constant. As this would affect the validity of meta-analyses, we tested the hypothesis that the reported effect size decreases over time. Furthermore, we tested three hypotheses that would explain a possible change. METHODS: Because of well established outcome measures, the lipid-lowering drugs Pravastatin and Atorvastatin (serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C) and the anti-glaucoma drugs Timolol and Latanoprost (intraocular pressure, IOP) were chosen for this investigation. Studies were identified by a standardized MEDLINE search. RCTs investigating the above identified medications administered as monotherapy, and in defined dosages, were included. Publication year, baseline (= pre-treatment value in the treatment group of interest) and post intervention means, number of patients and the assignment to experimental or control group were extracted for each study. RESULTS: A total of 625 citations were screened; 206 met the inclusion criteria. The reported effect size of Pravastatin (change of reported effect size in five years: -3.22% LDL-C, P < .0001), Timolol (-0.56 mmHg, P < .0001) and Latanoprost (-1.78 mmHg, P = .0074) decreased over time, while there was no significant change for Atorvastatin (+0.31% LDL-C, P = .8618). Multiple regression analysis showed that baseline values were the most important influencing factor; study size or treatment group did not play a significant role. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of medical therapies reported in RCTs decreases over time in three of the four investigated pharmaceuticals, caused mainly by baseline differences. We call this phenomenon "fading of reported effectiveness". Under this condition the validity of a meta-analysis may be impaired. Therefore we propose to observe this phenomenon in future meta-analyses in order to guarantee a maximum of transparency

Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: The ideal evidence to answer a question about the effectiveness of treatment is a systematic review. However, for many clinical questions a systematic review will not be available, or may not be up to date. One option could be to use the evidence from an individual trial to answer the question? METHODS: We assessed how often (a) the estimated effect and (b) the p-value in the most precise single trial in a meta-analysis agreed with the whole meta-analysis. For a random sample of 200 completed Cochrane Reviews (January, 2005) we identified a primary outcome and extracted: the number of trials, the statistical weight of the most precise trial, the estimate and confidence interval for both the highest weighted trial and the meta-analysis overall. We calculated the p-value for the most precise trial and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 200 reviews, only 132 provided a meta-analysis of 2 or more trials, with a further 35 effect estimates based on single trials. The average number of trials was 7.3, with the most precise trial contributing, on average, 51% of the statistical weight to the summary estimate from the whole meta-analysis. The estimates of effect from the most precise trial and the overall meta-analyses were highly correlated (rank correlation of 0.90).There was an 81% agreement in statistical conclusions. Results from the most precise trial were statistically significant in 60 of the 167 evaluable reviews, with 55 of the corresponding systematic reviews also being statistically significant. The five discrepant results were not strikingly different with respect to their estimates of effect, but showed considerable statistical heterogeneity between trials in these meta-analyses. However, among the 101 cases in which the most precise trial was not statistically significant, the corresponding meta-analyses yielded 31 statistically significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Single most precise trials provided similar estimates of effects to those of the meta-analyses to which they contributed, and statistically significant results are generally in agreement. However, "negative" results were less reliable, as may be expected from single underpowered trials. For systematic reviewers we suggest that: (1) key trial(s) in a review deserve greater attention (2) systematic reviewers should check agreement of the most precise trial and the meta analysis. For clinicians using trials we suggest that when a meta-analysis is not available, a focus on the most precise trial is reasonable provided it is adequately powered

Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research. METHODS: In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p= .461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome. CONCLUSIONS: It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE

Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic reviews have the potential to inform decisions made by health policymakers and managers, yet little is known about the impact of interventions to increase the use of systematic reviews by these groups in decision making.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically reviewed the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision making by health policymakers or managers. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until April 2010. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a health policymaker or manager. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the study population and availability of extractable data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>11,297 titles and abstracts were reviewed, leading to retrieval of 37 full-text articles for assessment; four of these articles met all inclusion criteria. Three articles described one study where five systematic reviews were mailed to public health officials and followed up with surveys at three months and two years. The articles reported from 23% to 63% of respondents declaring they had used systematic reviews in policymaking decisions. One randomised trial indicated that tailored messages combined with access to a registry of systematic reviews had a significant effect on policies made in the area of healthy body weight promotion in health departments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The limited empirical data renders the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and the types of interventions that encourage health policymakers and managers to use systematic reviews in decision making.</p

A Systematic Evaluation of the Impact of STRICTA and CONSORT Recommendations on Quality of Reporting for Acupuncture Trials

Background: We investigated whether there had been an improvement in quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture since the publication of the STRICTA and CONSORT statements. We conducted a before-and-after study, comparing ratings for quality of reporting following the publication of both STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations. Methodology and Principal Findings: Ninety peer reviewed journal articles reporting the results of acupuncture trials were selected at random from a wider sample frame of 266 papers. Papers published in three distinct time periods (1994–1995, 1999–2000 and 2004–2005) were compared. Assessment criteria were developed directly from CONSORT and STRICTA checklists. Papers were independently assessed for quality of reporting by two assessors, one of whom was blind to information which could have introduced systematic bias (e.g. date of publication). We detected a statistically significant increase in the reporting of CONSORT items for papers published in each time period measured. We did not, however, find a difference between the number of STRICTA items reported in journal articles published before and 3 to 4 years following the introduction of STRICTA recommendations. Conclusions and Significance: The results of this study suggest that general standards of reporting for acupuncture trials have significantly improved since the introduction of the CONSORT statement in 1996, but that quality in reporting detail

Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions? A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Independent evaluation of clinical evidence is advocated in evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, authors' conclusions are often appealing for readers who look for quick messages. We assessed how well a group of Malaysian hospital practitioners and medical students derived their own conclusions from systematic reviews (SRs) and to what extent these were influenced by their prior beliefs and the direction of the study results.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted two cross-sectional studies: one with hospital practitioners (<it>n </it>= 150) attending an EBM course in June 2008 in a tertiary hospital and one with final-year medical students (<it>n </it>= 35) in November 2008. We showed our participants four Cochrane SR abstracts without the authors' conclusions. For each article, the participants chose a conclusion from among six options comprising different combinations of the direction of effect and the strength of the evidence. We predetermined the single option that best reflected the actual authors' conclusions and labelled this as our best conclusion. We compared the participants' choices with our predetermined best conclusions. Two chosen reviews demonstrated that the intervention was beneficial ("positive"), and two others did not ("negative"). We also asked the participants their prior beliefs about the intervention.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 60.3% correctly identified the direction of effect, and 30.1% chose the best conclusions, having identified both the direction of effect and the strength of evidence. More students (48.2%) than practitioners (22.2%) chose the best conclusions (<it>P </it>< 0.001). Fewer than one-half (47%) correctly identified the direction of effect against their prior beliefs. "Positive" SRs were more likely than "negative" SRs to change the participants' beliefs about the effect of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 2.6) and "convert" those who were previously unsure by making them choose the appropriate direction of effect (RR 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 2.8).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The majority of our participants could not generate appropriate conclusions from SRs independently. Judicious direction from the authors' conclusions still appears crucial to guiding our health care practitioners in identifying appropriate messages from research. Authors, editors and reviewers should ensure that the conclusions of a paper accurately reflect the results. Similar studies should be conducted in other settings where awareness and application of EBM are different.</p> <p>Please see Commentary: <url>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/31/</url>.</p

Patient Organizations’ Funding from Pharmaceutical Companies: Is Disclosure Clear, Complete and Accessible to the Public? An Italian Survey

BACKGROUND: Many patients' and consumers' organizations accept drug industry funding to support their activities. As drug companies and patient groups move closer, disclosure become essential for transparency, and the internet could be a useful means of making sponsorship information accessible to the public. This survey aims to assess the transparency of a large group of Italian patient and consumer groups and a group of pharmaceutical companies, focusing on their websites. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patient and consumer groups were selected from those stated to be sponsored by a group of pharmaceutical companies on their websites. The websites were examined using two forms with principal (name of drug companies providing funds, amount of funding) and secondary indicators of transparency (section where sponsors are disclosed, update of sponsorship). Principal indicators were applied independently by two reviewers to the patient and consumer groups' websites. Discordances were solved by discussion. One hundred fifty-seven Italian patient and consumer groups and 17 drug companies were considered. Thirteen drug companies (76%) named at least one group funded, on their Italian websites. Of these, four (31%) indicated the activities sponsored and two (15%) the amount of funding. Of the 157 patient and consumer groups, 46 (29%) named at least one pharmaceutical company as providing funds. Three (6%) reported the amount of funding, 25 (54%) the activities funded, none the proportion of income derived from drug companies. Among the groups naming pharmaceutical company sponsors, 15 (33%) declared them in a dedicated section, five (11%) on the home page, the others in the financial report or other sections. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Disclosure of funds is scarce on Italian patient and consumer groups' websites. The levels of transparency need to be improved. Disclosure of patient and consumer groups provided with funds is frequent on Italian pharmaceutical companies' websites, but information are often not complete

A meta-analysis for the effect of prophylactic GTN on the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and on the successful rate of cannulation of bile ducts

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) has been shown to be able to relax the sphincter of Oddi (SO) both in animals and humans. Theoretically, the use of these compounds during and after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatgraphy (ERCP) could relax the biliary and pancreatic sphincters, facilitating cannulation of common bile duct (CBD) during the procedure, or minimizing potential pancreatic outflow obstruction after the procedure. However, clinical trials evaluating the protective effect of GTN on the post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatgraphy pancreatitis (PEP) have yielded inconclusive results. This meta-analysis is to systematically assess the effect of prophylactic administration of glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) on the prevention of PEP and the effect on the cannulation of bile ducts.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>By searching PubMed (1966 to September 2009), CENTRAL (Cochrane Controlled trials Register; issue 3, 2009) and EMBASE.com (1984 to September 2009), two independent reviewers systematically identified prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) detecting the effect of prophylactic GTN on the incidence of PEP and on the cannulation of bile ducts. A meta-analysis of these clinical trials was then performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There are 55/899(6.1%) patients suffering PEP in the treatment group versus 95/915(10.4%) patients in the placebo group. The overall pooled risk of PEP was significantly lower in the GTN group than in the placebo group (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.79, p = 0.001). Subgroup analyses suggested that GTN administered by the sublingual form (OR 0.34,95% CI:0.16 to 0.75, p = 0.007) is more effective than transdermal route(OR 0.64,95% CI:0.40 to 1.01, p = 0.05), and the protective effect of GTN was far more obvious in the centers with high incidence of PEP (OR 0.40, 95% CI:0.24 to 0.67, p = 0.0006) than those centers with a low incidence of PEP (OR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.20, p = 0.22). Additionally, the meta-analysis suggests that GTN was not helpful for the cannulation of bile ducts.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We concluded that prophylactic administration of GTN may significantly reduce the incidence of PEP and not be helpful for the cannulation of bile ducts.</p

Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature

BACKGROUND: The citation rate for articles is viewed as a measure of their importance and impact; however, little is known about what features of articles are associated with higher citation rate. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study of all original articles, regardless of study methodology, published in the Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine, from October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. We identified 328 articles. Two blinded, independent reviewers extracted, in duplicate, nine variables from each article, which were analyzed in both univariable and multivariable linear least-squares regression models for their association with the annual rate of citations received by the article since publication. A two-way interaction between industry funding and an industry-favoring result was tested and found to be significant (p = 0.02). In our adjusted analysis, the presence of industry funding and an industry-favoring result was associated with an increase in annual citation rate of 25.7 (95% confidence interval, 8.5 to 42.8) compared to the absence of both industry funding and industry-favoring results. Higher annual rates of citation were also associated with articles dealing with cardiovascular medicine (13.3 more; 95% confidence interval, 3.9 to 22.3) and oncology (12.6 more; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 24.0), articles with group authorship (11.1 more; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 19.5), larger sample size and journal of publication. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Large trials, with group authorship, industry-funded, with industry-favoring results, in oncology or cardiology were associated with greater subsequent citations