Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare methodological characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in higher vs. lower impact Core Clinical Journals. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE for RCTs published in 2007 in Core Clinical Journals. We randomly sampled 1,140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio in higher (five general medicine journals with the highest total citations in 2007) and lower impact journals. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-nine RCTs proved eligible: 219 in higher and 250 in lower impact journals. RCTs in higher vs. lower impact journals had larger sample sizes (median, 285 vs. 39), were more likely to receive industry funding (53% vs. 28%), declare concealment of allocation (66% vs. 36%), declare blinding of health care providers (53% vs. 41%) and outcome adjudicators (72% vs. 54%), report a patient-important primary outcome (69% vs. 50%), report subgroup analyses (64% vs. 26%), prespecify subgroup hypotheses (42% vs. 20%), and report a test for interaction (54% vs. 27%); P < 0.05 for all differences. CONCLUSION: RCTs published in higher impact journals were more likely to report methodological safeguards against bias and patient-important outcomes than those published in lower impact journals. However, sufficient limitations remain such that publication in a higher impact journal does not ensure low risk of bias

Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the credibility of authors' claims of subgroup effects using a representative sample of recently published randomised controlled trials. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCE: Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine, in Medline. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials published in 2007. Using prespecified criteria, teams of trained reviewers independently judged whether authors claimed subgroup effects and the strength of their claims. Reviewers assessed each of these claims against 10 predefined criteria, developed through a search of existing criteria and a consensus process. RESULTS: Of 207 randomised controlled trials reporting subgroup analyses, 64 (31%) made claims for the primary outcome. Of those, 20 were strong claims and 28 claims of a likely effect. Authors included subgroup variables measured at baseline in 60 (94%) trials, used subgroup variable as a stratification factor at randomisation in 13 (20%), clearly prespecified their hypotheses in 26 (41%), correctly prespecified direction in 4 (6%), tested a small number of hypotheses in 28 (44%), carried out a test of interaction that proved statistically significant in 6 (9%), documented replication of a subgroup effect with previous related studies in 21 (33%), identified consistency of a subgroup effect across related outcomes in 19 (30%), and provided a compelling indirect evidence for the effect in 14 (22%). In the 19 trials making more than one claim, only one (5%) checked the independence of the interaction. Of the 64 claims, 54 (84%) met four or fewer of the 10 criteria. For strong claims, more than 50% failed each of the individual criteria, and only three (15%) met more than five criteria. CONCLUSION: Authors often claim subgroup effects in their trial report. However, the credibility of subgroup effects, even when claims are strong, is usually low. Users of the information should treat claims that fail to meet most criteria with scepticism. Trial researchers should report the conduct of subgroup analyses and provide sufficient evidence when claiming a subgroup effect or suggesting a possible effect

Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery (MINS) in Vascular Surgical Patients: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prognostic relevance, clinical characteristics, and 30-day outcomes associated with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) in vascular surgical patients. BACKGROUND: MINS has been independently associated with 30-day mortality after noncardiac surgery. The characteristics and prognostic importance of MINS in vascular surgery patients are poorly described. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of 15,102 noncardiac surgery patients 45 years or older, of whom 502 patients underwent vascular surgery. All patients had fourth-generation plasma troponin T (TnT) concentrations measured during the first 3 postoperative days. MINS was defined as a TnT of 0.03 ng/mL of higher secondary to ischemia. The objectives of the present study were to determine (i) if MINS is prognostically important in vascular surgical patients, (ii) the clinical characteristics of vascular surgery patients with and without MINS, (iii) the 30-day outcomes for vascular surgery patients with and without MINS, and (iv) the proportion of MINS that probably would have gone undetected without routine troponin monitoring. RESULTS: The incidence of MINS in the vascular surgery patients was 19.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 15.7%-22.6%). 30-day all-cause mortality in the vascular cohort was 12.5% (95% CI 7.3%-20.6%) in patients with MINS compared with 1.5% (95% CI 0.7%-3.2%) in patients without MINS (P < 0.001). MINS was independently associated with 30-day mortality in vascular patients (odds ratio, 9.48; 95% CI, 3.46-25.96). The 30-day mortality was similar in MINS patients with (15.0%; 95% CI, 7.1-29.1) and without an ischemic feature (12.2%; 95% CI, 5.3-25.5, P = 0.76). The proportion of vascular surgery patients who suffered MINS without overt evidence of myocardial ischemia was 74.1% (95% CI, 63.6-82.4). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 5 patients experienced MINS after vascular surgery. MINS was independently associated with 30-day mortality. The majority of patients with MINS were asymptomatic and would have gone undetected without routine postoperative troponin measurement