10 research outputs found
Outcome adjudication in randomised trials in leading medical journals: Protocol for a methodological review
Artesunate-amodiaquine versus artemether-lumefantrine for the treatment of acute uncomplicated malaria in Congolese children under 10Â years old living in a suburban area: a randomized study
Essais randomisés conduits en Afrique subsaharienne : épidémiologie, méthodologie et description des interventions
Sub-saharan Africa (SSA) is characterized by a high population growth and a significant poverty. In addition, this area deals with a burden of disease due to both traditional infection diseases and the emerging chronic diseases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) taking into account the local context are needed to strength health policy and to improve the population health. However, because of constraint research capacities, RCTs performed in SSA must investigate relevant research questions, biases must be avoided in methods, and health interventions evaluated must be reported completely for easing implementation in current clinical practice. Such efforts help to avoid waste of research. Our objectives were to describe the epidemiology of SSA RCTs, and then to evaluate the methodological quality as well as the reporting of evaluated interventions. On the one hand, our works highlighted that SSA RCTs mainly focused on diseases of the highest burden in that area, although they were frequently funded by high-income countries, and most of the corresponding authors were affiliated to those countries. In the other hand, we have shown that methods at high risk of bias can be avoided through simple methodological adjustments of minor cost. Improving the methodological quality of SSA RCTs implies a large dissemination of available methods at low risk of bias and guidelines on the complete reporting of interventions. Furthermore, understanding barriers and facilitators to the uptake of those methods and guidelines is equally required.L’Afrique sub-saharienne (SSA) se caractérise par une croissance démographique rapide et une pauvreté notoire. Cette région du monde fait face à une charge de morbidité causée à la fois par les maladies infectieuses traditionnelles et par l’émergence des maladies chroniques. Les essais contrôlés randomisés (ECR) prenant en compte le contexte local sont nécessaires pour renforcer les politiques de santé publique et améliorer l’état de santé des populations. Toutefois à cause des capacités limitées de recherche, les ECR conduits en ASS doivent répondre à des questions prioritaires, les biais (erreurs systématiques) doivent être évités dans les méthodes, et les interventions de santé évaluées doivent être décrites de manière pour faciliter leur implémentation dans la pratique clinique courante. Ces mesures permettent d’éviter le « gâchis de la recherche ». Nos objectifs étaient de décrire l’épidémiologie des ECR conduits en ASS, et d’évaluer la qualité méthodologique (risque de biais) ainsi que le « reporting » des interventions évaluées. Nos travaux ont montré d’une part qu’en ASS, les ECR portent fréquemment sur les maladies à forte morbi-mortalité dans cette région ; mais que les financements des recherches effectuées proviennent surtout des pays à haut revenu (Europe occidentale et Amérique du Nord), et que les auteurs correspondants sont majoritairement affiliés aux institutions des pays à haut revenu. D’autre part, nous avons montré que les méthodes à haut risque de biais peuvent être évitées au moyen d’ajustements méthodologiques simples au coût mineur. L’amélioration de la qualité méthodologique des ECR conduits en ASS implique une large diffusion des méthodes à faible risque de biais ainsi que celle des recommandations pour la description complète des interventions. En outre, une compréhension des barrières et des facilitateurs à l’adhérence à ces méthodes et à ces recommandations est également nécessaire
Randomised controlled trials performed in sub-saharan Africa : epidemiology, methodology and interventions description
L’Afrique sub-saharienne (SSA) se caractérise par une croissance démographique rapide et une pauvreté notoire. Cette région du monde fait face à une charge de morbidité causée à la fois par les maladies infectieuses traditionnelles et par l’émergence des maladies chroniques. Les essais contrôlés randomisés (ECR) prenant en compte le contexte local sont nécessaires pour renforcer les politiques de santé publique et améliorer l’état de santé des populations. Toutefois à cause des capacités limitées de recherche, les ECR conduits en ASS doivent répondre à des questions prioritaires, les biais (erreurs systématiques) doivent être évités dans les méthodes, et les interventions de santé évaluées doivent être décrites de manière pour faciliter leur implémentation dans la pratique clinique courante. Ces mesures permettent d’éviter le « gâchis de la recherche ». Nos objectifs étaient de décrire l’épidémiologie des ECR conduits en ASS, et d’évaluer la qualité méthodologique (risque de biais) ainsi que le « reporting » des interventions évaluées. Nos travaux ont montré d’une part qu’en ASS, les ECR portent fréquemment sur les maladies à forte morbi-mortalité dans cette région ; mais que les financements des recherches effectuées proviennent surtout des pays à haut revenu (Europe occidentale et Amérique du Nord), et que les auteurs correspondants sont majoritairement affiliés aux institutions des pays à haut revenu. D’autre part, nous avons montré que les méthodes à haut risque de biais peuvent être évitées au moyen d’ajustements méthodologiques simples au coût mineur. L’amélioration de la qualité méthodologique des ECR conduits en ASS implique une large diffusion des méthodes à faible risque de biais ainsi que celle des recommandations pour la description complète des interventions. En outre, une compréhension des barrières et des facilitateurs à l’adhérence à ces méthodes et à ces recommandations est également nécessaire.Sub-saharan Africa (SSA) is characterized by a high population growth and a significant poverty. In addition, this area deals with a burden of disease due to both traditional infection diseases and the emerging chronic diseases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) taking into account the local context are needed to strength health policy and to improve the population health. However, because of constraint research capacities, RCTs performed in SSA must investigate relevant research questions, biases must be avoided in methods, and health interventions evaluated must be reported completely for easing implementation in current clinical practice. Such efforts help to avoid waste of research. Our objectives were to describe the epidemiology of SSA RCTs, and then to evaluate the methodological quality as well as the reporting of evaluated interventions. On the one hand, our works highlighted that SSA RCTs mainly focused on diseases of the highest burden in that area, although they were frequently funded by high-income countries, and most of the corresponding authors were affiliated to those countries. In the other hand, we have shown that methods at high risk of bias can be avoided through simple methodological adjustments of minor cost. Improving the methodological quality of SSA RCTs implies a large dissemination of available methods at low risk of bias and guidelines on the complete reporting of interventions. Furthermore, understanding barriers and facilitators to the uptake of those methods and guidelines is equally required
Correction to: Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa
Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa
Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to improve health care in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions can prevent the transposition of research in practice which leads waste of research. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the avoidable waste in research related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions in RCTs performed in SSA. Methods We performed a methodological systematic review of RCTs performed in SSA and published between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2015. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library and the African Index Medicus to identify reports. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and for each risk of bias item, determined whether easy adjustments with no or minor cost could change the domain to low risk of bias. The reporting of interventions was assessed by using standardized checklists based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, and core items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Corresponding authors of reports with incomplete reporting of interventions were contacted to obtain additional information. Data were descriptively analyzed. Results Among 121 RCTs selected, 74 (61%) evaluated pharmacological treatments (PTs), including drugs and nutritional supplements; and 47 (39%) nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs) (40 participative interventions, 1 surgical procedure, 3 medical devices and 3 therapeutic strategies). Overall, the randomization sequence was adequately generated in 76 reports (62%) and the intervention allocation concealed in 48 (39%). The primary outcome was described as blinded in 46 reports (38%), and incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 78 (64%). Applying easy methodological adjustments with no or minor additional cost to trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias could have reduced the number of domains at high risk for 24 RCTs (19%). Interventions were completely reported for 73/121 (60%) RCTs: 51/74 (68%) of PTs and 22/47 (46%) of NPTs. Additional information was obtained from corresponding authors for 11/48 reports (22%). Conclusion Inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of published SSA RCTs could be improved by easy and inexpensive methodological adjustments and adherence to reporting guidelines
Correction to: Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa
Correction In the original publication [1] the last sentence in the last paragraph under ‘Perspectives and implications’ in the Discussions section needs to be removed. The correct version can be found in this Erratum