| 1. |
- Eslava-Schmalbach, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Considering health equity when moving from evidence-based guideline recommendations to implementation : a case study from an upper-middle income country on the GRADE approach
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Health Policy and Planning. - : Oxford University Press. - 0268-1080 .- 1460-2237. ; 32:10, s. 1484-1490
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The availability of evidence-based guidelines does not ensure their implementation and use in clinical practice or policy making. Inequities in health have been defined as those inequalities within or between populations that are avoidable, unnecessary and also unjust and unfair. Evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines ('guidelines') can be used to target health inequities experienced by disadvantaged populations, although guidelines may unintentionally increase health inequities. For this reason, there is a need for evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines to intentionally target health inequities experienced by disadvantaged populations. Current guideline development processes do not include steps for planned implementation of equity-focused guidelines. This article describes nine steps that provide guidance for consideration of equity during guideline implementation. A critical appraisal of the literature followed by a process to build expert consensus was undertaken to define how to include consideration of equity issues during the specific GRADE guideline development process. Using a case study from Colombia we describe nine steps that were used to implement equity-focused GRADE recommendations: (1) identification of disadvantaged groups, (2) quantification of current health inequities, (3) development of equity-sensitive recommendations, (4) identification of key actors for implementation of equity-focused recommendations, (5) identification of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of equity-focused recommendations, (6) development of an equity strategy to be included in the implementation plan, (7) assessment of resources and incentives, (8) development of a communication strategy to support an equity focus and (9) development of monitoring and evaluation strategies. This case study can be used as model for implementing clinical practice guidelines, taking into account equity issues during guideline development and implementation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Goldenberg, Joshua Z., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission : systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ (Clinical research ed.). - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 372
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA1c, fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist. RESULTS: Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I2=58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020161795.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Juszczak, Edmund, et al.
(författare)
-
Introducing the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using cohorts and routinely collected health data
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : BMC. - 1745-6215. ; 20:Suppl. 1, s. 131-131
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly being conducted using existing sources of data, such as cohorts, administrative databases, disease registries and electronic health records. RCTs conducted using existing data sources require additional information to be reported. This reporting guideline is an extension of the 2010 version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.Methods: A long-list of potential items for the checklist was identified through two methods: firstly, modifications to the current CONSORT checklist were generated using existing reporting guidelines, including the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statements. Secondly, ascoping review of RCTs conducted in the last decade using cohorts and routinely collected health data facilitated the modification and identification of other potential items. Using the long-list, a three-stage Delphi exercise was conducted to assess the importance of each item for inclusion in the final extension checklist, which was finalised at a face-to-face meeting of experts.Results: A long-list of 27 items was created and 125 experts registered for the three-round Delphi exercise (92, 77 and 62 experts participated in each round respectively). Consensus was reached on 21 out of 27 items. The results of the Delphi exercise informed a face-to-face consensus meeting in May 2019; core items to be included in the extension checklist were finalised at this meeting. Corresponding explanations of extensions and new items with examples of good reporting were developed subsequently.Conclusion: The guideline checklist can facilitate transparent reporting of RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data, to assist evaluations of rigour and reproducibility, enhance understanding of the methodology, and make the results more useful for clinicians, journal editors, reviewers, guideline authors, and funders.
|
|
| 5. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(författare)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 17:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. Methods and findings This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. Conclusions Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.
|
|
| 6. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(författare)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : A protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Systematic Reviews. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2046-4053. ; 9:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. Methods/design: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an "active" comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or "active placebo") for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Discussion: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.
|
|
| 7. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(författare)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLoS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:3 March
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. Methods and findings We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. Conclusions No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that
|
|
| 8. |
- Jørgensen, Caroline Kamp, et al.
(författare)
-
Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME) : A Consortium Initiative for Improving Methodology in Randomised Clinical Trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Health Services Insights. - 1178-6329. ; 16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials.
|
|
| 9. |
- Kwakkenbos, Linda, et al.
(författare)
-
CONSORT extension for the reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE) : checklist with explanation and elaboration
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The BMJ. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 1756-1833 .- 0959-8146. ; 373
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Randomised controlled trials are increasingly conducted as embedded, nested, or using cohorts or routinely collected data, including registries, electronic health records, and administrative databases, to assess if participants are eligible for the trial and to facilitate recruitment, to deliver an embedded intervention, to collect trial outcome data, or a combination of these purposes. This report presents the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE). The extension was developed to look at the unique characteristics of trials conducted with these types of data with the goal of improving reporting quality in the long term by setting standards early in the process of uptake of these trial designs. The extension was developed with a sequential approach, including a Delphi survey, a consensus meeting, and piloting of the checklist. The checklist was informed by the CONSORT 2010 statement and two reporting guidelines for observational studies, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected Data (RECORD) statement. The extension includes eight items modified from the CONSORT 2010 statement and five new items. Reporting items with explanations and examples are provided, including key aspects of trials conducted using cohorts or routinely collected data that require specific reporting considerations.
|
|
| 10. |
- Kwakkenbos, Linda, et al.
(författare)
-
Protocol for a scoping review to support development of a CONSORT extension for randomised controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected health data
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 8:8
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. The development of an extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data is being undertaken with the goal of improving reporting quality by setting standards early in the process of uptake of these designs. To develop this extension to the CONSORT statement, a scoping review will be conducted to identify potential modifications or clarifications of existing reporting guideline items, as well as additional items needed for reporting RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.Methods and analysis: In separate searches, we will seek publications on methods or reporting or that describe protocols or results from RCTs using cohorts, registries, electronic health records and administrative databases. Data sources will include Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. For each of the four main types of RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data, separately, two investigators will independently review included publications to extract potential checklist items. A potential item will either modify an existing CONSORT 2010, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology or REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data item or will be proposed as a new item. Additionally, we will identify examples of good reporting in RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data.Ethics and dissemination: The proposed scoping review will help guide the development of the CONSORT extension statement for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data.
|
|
