The reporting of methods for reducing and detecting bias: an example from the WHO Misoprostol Third Stage of Labour equivalence randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The aim of this article is to explore ways in which selection bias and ascertainment bias can be reduced and investigated in trials, by using the example of a drug trial carried out in both developed and developing countries in hospital delivery wards. METHODS: We describe an innovative and practical design for the boxes for packing the drugs as a way of increasing the security of allocation concealment and blinding. We also assess ascertainment bias using sensitivity analyses, as some unblinding could have occurred due to a potential side effect of one of the drugs. RESULTS: The sensitivity analyses indicated that the conclusions about the relative effects of the treatments could be maintained even in the unlikely worst-case scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed description of the procedures protecting against common biases and of the assessment of ascertainment bias in this trial should allow readers to confidently appraise and interpret the results obtained. In addition, our experiences will assist others in planning trials in the future

Methodological quality and bias in randomised controlled trials.

To evaluate the methodological quality of randomised trials in recently published articles and to examine the associations between methodological quality and bias, three related investigations were undertaken. First, to ensure the development of useful measures for the adequacy of randomisation, approaches to allocation were assessed as reported in 206 parallel group trials published in recent volumes of journals of obstetrics and gynaecology. Next, a study was conducted of associations between methodological quality and treatment effects. The material analysed came from 250 trials in 33 meta-analyses on pregnancy and childbirth topics. Finally, the reported approaches to blinding and handling of exclusions were assessed from a random sample of 110 of the 206 previously identified reports. In the 206 published trials, 77% reported either inadequately or unclearly concealed treatment allocation. Additional analyses suggest that non-random manipulation of comparison groups may have occurred. In the next study. compared with trials in which authors reported adequately concealed treatment allocation, trials in which authors reported inadequately or unclearly concealed allocation yielded larger estimates of treatment effects (p<0.001). Odds ratios were distorted by 41% and 33%, respectively. Those associations likely represent bias and are particularly disconcerting in light of the results above from recently published trials. Lack of double-blinding in trials was also associated with larger treatment benefits. However, trials in which authors reported excluding 2 participants after randomisation were not associated with larger treatment effects. That lack of association appeared to be due to incomplete reporting. 3 The analysis of 110 recently published trials also supported the findings that some of the trials not reporting exclusions may actually have had exclusions. In practice, that incomplete reporting could lead to misinterpretations of trial quality. Moreover, only about half the trials that could have double-blinded actually did so. When investigators attempted double-blinding, only 16% provided any written assurances of successfully implementing blinding and only 6% tested its efficacy

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 only be achieved 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 paper 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 Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22-items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biasedestimates of treatment effect or 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 four stages of a trial (enrolment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for 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

Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials

Background: Cluster randomised trials can be susceptible to a range of methodological problems. These problems are not commonly recognised by many researchers. In this paper we discuss the issues that can lead to bias in cluster trials. Methods: We used a sample of cluster randomised trials from a recent review and from a systematic review of hip protectors. We compared the mean age of participants between intervention groups in a sample of 'good' cluster trials with a sample of potentially biased trials. We also compared the effect sizes, in a funnel plot, between hip protector trials that used individual randomisation compared with those that used cluster randomisation. Results: There is a tendency for cluster trials, with evidence methodological biases, to also show an age imbalance between treatment groups. In a funnel plot we show that all cluster trials show a large positive effect of hip protectors whilst individually randomised trials show a range of positive and negative effects, suggesting that cluster trials may be producing a biased estimate of effect. Conclusion: Methodological biases in the design and execution of cluster randomised trials is frequent. Some of these biases associated with the use of cluster designs can be avoided through careful attention to the design of cluster trials. Firstly, if possible, individual allocation should be used. Secondly, if cluster allocation is required, then ideally participants should be identified before random allocation of the clusters. Third, if prior identification is not possible, then an independent recruiter should be used to recruit participants

Investigating the effect of independent blinded digital image assessment on the STOP GAP trial

Background Blinding is the process of keeping treatment assignment hidden and is used to minimise the possibility of bias. Trials at high risk of bias have been shown to report larger treatment effects than low risk studies. In dermatology, one popular method of blinding is to have independent outcome assessors who are unaware of treatment allocation assessing the end point using digital photographs. However, this can be complex, expensive and time-consuming. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of blinded and unblinded outcome assessment on the results of the STOP GAP trial. Methods The STOP GAP trial compared prednisolone to ciclosporin in treating pyoderma gangrenosum. Participants’ lesions were measured at baseline and 6 weeks to calculate the primary outcome, speed of healing. Independent blinded assessors obtained measurements from digital photographs using specialist software. In addition, unblinded treating clinicians estimated lesion area by measuring length and width. The primary outcome was determined using blinded measurements where available, otherwise unblinded measurements were used (method referred to as trial measurements). In this study, agreement between the trial and unblinded measurements was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The STOP GAP primary analysis was repeated using unblinded measurements only. We introduced differential and non-differential error in unblinded measurements and investigated the effect on the STOP GAP primary analysis. Results 86 (80%) of the 108 patients were assessed using digital images. Agreement between trial and unblinded measurements was excellent (ICC=0.92 at baseline; 0.83 at 6 weeks). There was no evidence that the results of the trial primary analysis differed according to how the primary outcome was assessed (p-value for homogeneity = 1.00). Conclusions Blinded digital image assessment in STOP GAP did not meaningfully alter trial conclusions compared with unblinded assessment. However, as the process brought added accuracy and credibility to the trial it was considered worthwhile. These findings question the usefulness of digital image assessment in a trial with an objective outcome and where bias is not expected to be excessive. Further research should investigate if there are alternative, less complex ways of incorporating blinding in clinical trials

The development of QUADAS : a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: In the era of evidence based medicine, with systematic reviews as its cornerstone, adequate quality assessment tools should be available. There is currently a lack of a systematically developed and evaluated tool for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. The aim of this project was to combine empirical evidence and expert opinion in a formal consensus method to develop a tool to be used in systematic reviews to assess the quality of primary studies of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We conducted a Delphi procedure to develop the quality assessment tool by refining an initial list of items. Members of the Delphi panel were experts in the area of diagnostic research. The results of three previously conducted reviews of the diagnostic literature were used to generate a list of potential items for inclusion in the tool and to provide an evidence base upon which to develop the tool. RESULTS: A total of nine experts in the field of diagnostics took part in the Delphi procedure. The Delphi procedure consisted of four rounds, after which agreement was reached on the items to be included in the tool which we have called QUADAS. The initial list of 28 items was reduced to fourteen items in the final tool. Items included covered patient spectrum, reference standard, disease progression bias, verification bias, review bias, clinical review bias, incorporation bias, test execution, study withdrawals, and indeterminate results. The QUADAS tool is presented together with guidelines for scoring each of the items included in the tool. CONCLUSIONS: This project has produced an evidence based quality assessment tool to be used in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Further work to determine the usability and validity of the tool continue

Risk of selection bias in randomised trials

Background: Selection bias occurs when recruiters selectively enrol patients into the trial based on what the next treatment allocation is likely to be. This can occur even if appropriate allocation concealment is used if recruiters can guess the next treatment assignment with some degree of accuracy. This typically occurs in unblinded trials when restricted randomisation is implemented to force the number of patients in each arm or within each centre to be the same. Several methods to reduce the risk of selection bias have been suggested; however, it is unclear how often these techniques are used in practice. Methods: We performed a review of published trials which were not blinded to assess whether they utilised methods for reducing the risk of selection bias. We assessed the following techniques: (a) blinding of recruiters; (b) use of simple randomisation; (c) avoidance of stratification by site when restricted randomisation is used; (d) avoidance of permuted blocks if stratification by site is used; and (e) incorporation of prognostic covariates into the randomisation procedure when restricted randomisation is used. We included parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010. Results: We identified 152 eligible trials. Most trials (98%) provided no information on whether recruiters were blind to previous treatment allocations. Only 3% of trials used simple randomisation; 63% used some form of restricted randomisation, and 35% did not state the method of randomisation. Overall, 44% of trials were stratified by site of recruitment; 27% were not, and 29% did not report this information. Most trials that did stratify by site of recruitment used permuted blocks (58%), and only 15% reported using random block sizes. Many trials that used restricted randomisation also included prognostic covariates in the randomisation procedure (56%). Conclusions: The risk of selection bias could not be ascertained for most trials due to poor reporting. Many trials which did provide details on the randomisation procedure were at risk of selection bias due to a poorly chosen randomisation methods. Techniques to reduce the risk of selection bias should be more widely implemented

Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence

Contains fulltext : 88651.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Clinical evidence continues to expand and is increasingly difficult to overview. We aimed at conceptualizing a visual assessment tool, i.e., a matrix for overviewing studies and their data in order to assess the clinical evidence at a glance. METHODS: A four-step matrix was constructed using the three dimensions of systematic error, random error, and design error. Matrix step I ranks the identified studies according to the dimensions of systematic errors and random errors. Matrix step II orders the studies according to the design errors. Matrix step III assesses the three dimensions of errors in studies. Matrix step IV assesses the size and direction of the intervention effect. RESULTS: The application of this four-step matrix is illustrated with two examples: peri-operative beta-blockade initialized in relation to surgery versus placebo for major non-cardiac surgery, and antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. When clinical evidence is deemed both internally and externally valid, the size of the intervention effect is to be assessed. CONCLUSION: The error matrix provides an overview of the validity of the available evidence at a glance, and may assist in deciding which interventions to use in clinical practice

Cellulite and extracorporeal Shockwave therapy (CelluShock-2009) - a Randomized Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cellulite is a widespread problem involving females' buttocks and thighs based on the female specific anatomy. Given the higher number of fat cells stored in female fatty tissue in contrast to males, and the aging process of connective tissue leads to an imbalance between lipogenesis and lipolysis with subsequent large fat cells bulging the skin. In addition, microcirculatory changes have been suggested, however remain largely unknown in a controlled clinical setting. We hypothesize that the combination of extracorporeal shockwave and a daily gluteal muscle strength program is superior to the gluteal muscle strength program alone in cellulite.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Study design: Randomized-controlled trial. IRB approval was granted at Hannover Medical School, Germany on May 22, 2009. For allocation of participants, a 1:1 ratio randomization was performed using opaque envelopes for the concealment of allocation. Reporting: according to CONSORT 2010. Eligible patients were females aged 18 or over and 65 or younger with cellulite with documented cellulite 1°-4° according to the Nürnberger score. Exclusion criteria were suspected or evident pregnancy, no cellulite, no informed consent or age under 18 years or above 65 years. Patients were recruited by advertisements in local regional newspapers and via the Internet. Analysis: Intention-to-treat. Outcome parameters: a) Photonumeric severity scale, b) Nürnberger Score, c) circumference measurements, d) capillary blood flow, e) tissue oxygen saturation, f) postcapillary venous blood flow. Intervention group: Six sessions of extracorporeal focused shock wave for six sessions (2000 impulses, 0,25 mJ/m2 every 1-2 weeks) at both gluteal and thigh regions plus a specific gluteal strength exercise training. Control group: Six sessions of sham extracorporeal focused shock wave for six sessions (2000 impulses, 0,01 mJ/m2 every 1-2 weeks) at both gluteal and thigh regions plus a specific gluteal strength exercise training. Follow-up: 12 weeks. Blinding was achieved for all participants enrolled in the trial, the photograph taking the digital images for the primary outcome measure, the two assessors of the outcome measures, all additional health care providers and for the analyst from the biometrical department. Only one researcher (BJ) was aware of the group assignment performing the randomisation and the extracorporeal shock wave therapy.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This randomised-controlled trial will provide much needed evidence on the clinical effectiveness of focused extracorporal shock wave therapy as an adjunct to gluteal strength training in females suffering cellulite.</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier</p> <p>NCT00947414</p

The HAC Trial (Harmonic for Acute Cholecystitis) Study. Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of Harmonic(H) versus Monopolar Diathermy (M) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute cholecystitis (AC) in adults

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the developmental stage of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) it was considered 'unsafe' or 'technically difficult' to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (AC). With increasing experience in laparoscopic surgery, a number of centers have reported on the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, suggesting that it is technically feasible but at the expense of a high conversion rate, which can be up to 35 per cent and common bile duct lesions.</p> <p>The HARMONIC SCALPEL(R) (H) is the leading ultrasonic cutting and coagulating surgical device, offering surgeons important benefits including: minimal lateral thermal tissue damage, minimal charring and desiccation.</p> <p>Harmonic Scalpel technology reduces the need for ligatures with simultaneous cutting and coagulation: moreover there is not electricity to or through the patient Harmonic Scalpel has a greater precision near vital structures and it produces minimal smoke with improved visibility in the surgical field.</p> <p>In retrospective series LC performed with H was demonstrated feasible and effective with minimal operating time and blood loss: it was reported also a low conversion rate (3.9%).</p> <p>However there are not prospective randomized controlled trials showing the advantages of H compared to MD (the commonly used electrical scalpel) in LC.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Aim of this RCT is to demonstrate that H can decrease the conversion rate compared to MD in LC for AC, without a significant increase of morbidity.</p> <p>The patients will be allocated in two groups: in the first group the patient will be submitted to early LC within 72 hours after the diagnosis with H while in the second group will be submitted to early LC within 72 hours with MD.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00746850</p