| 1. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Grudniewicz, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Predatory journals: no definition, no defence
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 576:7786, s. 210-212
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Cord, Kimberly A. Mc., et al.
(författare)
-
Reporting Transparency and Completeness in Trials : Paper 2 - Reporting of randomised trials using registries was often inadequate and hindered the interpretation of results
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Pergamon Press. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 141, s. 175-186
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Registries are important data sources for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but reporting of how they are used may be inadequate. The objective was to describe the current adequacy of reporting of RCTs using registries.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a database of trials using registries from a scoping review supporting the development of the 2021 CONSORT extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Reporting completeness of 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items was assessed.RESULTS: We assessed reports of 47 RCTs that used a registry, published between 2011 and 2018. Of the 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items, 6 were adequately reported in at least half of reports (2 in at least 80%). The 7 other items were related to routinely collected data source eligibility (32% adequate), data linkage (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for outcome assessment (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for participant recruitment (0% adequate), participant flow (9% adequate), registry funding (6% adequate) and interpretation of results in consideration of registry use (25% adequate).CONCLUSION: Reporting of trials using registries was often poor, particularly details on data linkage and quality. Better reporting is needed for appropriate interpretation of the results of these trials.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Imran, Mahrukh, et al.
(författare)
-
Methods and results used in the development of a consensus-driven extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 11:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. A Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) has been developed with the goal of improving reporting quality. This article describes the processes and methods used to develop the extension and decisions made to arrive at the final checklist.METHODS: The development process involved five stages: (1) identification of the need for a reporting guideline and project launch; (2) conduct of a scoping review to identify possible modifications to CONSORT 2010 checklist items and possible new extension items; (3) a three-round modified Delphi study involving key stakeholders to gather feedback on the checklist; (4) a consensus meeting to finalise items to be included in the extension, followed by stakeholder piloting of the checklist; and (5) publication, dissemination and implementation of the final checklist.RESULTS: 27 items were initially developed and rated in Delphi round 1, 13 items were rated in round 2 and 11 items were rated in round 3. Response rates for the Delphi study were 92 of 125 (74%) invited participants in round 1, 77 of 92 (84%) round 1 completers in round 2 and 62 of 77 (81%) round 2 completers in round 3. Twenty-seven members of the project team representing a variety of stakeholder groups attended the in-person consensus meeting. The final checklist includes five new items and eight modified items. The extension Explanation & Elaboration document further clarifies aspects that are important to report.CONCLUSION: Uptake of CONSORT-ROUTINE and accompanying Explanation & Elaboration document will improve conduct of trials, as well as the transparency and completeness of reporting of trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data.
|
|
| 10. |
- Imran, Mahrukh, et al.
(författare)
-
Reporting Transparency and Completeness in Trials : Paper 3 - Trials conducted using administrative databases do not adequately report elements related to use of databases
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Pergamon Press. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 141, s. 187-197
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: We evaluated reporting completeness and transparency in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using administrative data based on 2021 CONSORT Extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) criteria.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched (2011 and 2018). Eligible RCTs used administrative databases for identifying eligible participants or collecting outcomes. We evaluated reporting based on CONSORT-ROUTINE, which modified eight items from CONSORT 2010 and added five new items.RESULTS: Of 33 included trials (76% used administrative databases for outcomes, 3% for identifying participants, 21% both), most were conducted in the United States (55%), Canada (18%), or the United Kingdom (12%). Of eight items modified in the extension; six were adequately reported in a majority (>50%) of trials. For the CONSORT-ROUTINE modification portion of those items, three items were reported adequately in >50% of trials, two in <50%, two only applied to some trials, and one only had wording modifications and was not evaluated. For five new items, four that address use of routine data in trials were reported inadequately in most trials.CONCLUSION: How administrative data are used in trials is often sub-optimally reported. CONSORT-ROUTINE uptake may improve reporting.
|
|
