| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 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. |
- Kepp, Kasper P., et al.
(författare)
-
Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 173
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.
|
|
| 6. |
- Krause, Karolin R, et al.
(författare)
-
Paper II : Thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Pergamon Press. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 159, s. 330-343
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional RCTs. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n=12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n=13) and reports (n=77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs. CONCLUSION: Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.
|
|
| 7. |
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Levis, Brooke, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum : An individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. - : WILEY. - 1049-8931 .- 1557-0657. ; 28:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum.Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics.Results Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased.Conclusion Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.
|
|
