An intervention with clinical application must be effective and safe, therefore, when evaluating interventions, the benefit-harm ratio should be considered, and only those interventions with more benefits than harms have application value. To evaluate the benefits and harms of an intervention evidence of both benefits and harms should be reported in clinical trials. To promote better reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials, the CONSORT group had added an entry on harms in the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement, and then in 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated, the reporting of harms is still inadequate. The CONSORT group has updated《Better reporting of harms in randomized trial: an extension of the CCONSORT statement.》, published《CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials》. This article presents and explains the Harms 2022, with the aim of helping researchers better understand and use the statement, with a view to improving the reporting quality of harms in clinical trials.
Objective To investigate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on laparoscopic surgery for treating colorectal disease in three SCI indexed. Methods We electronically retrieved the Ovid MEDLINE(R) from 1950 to present with Daily Updates for RCTs on laparoscopic surgery published in Diseases of the Colon amp; Rectum, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, or Colorectal Disease. The revised CONSORT statement and additional surgical items were adopted to assess the reporting quality. One point was assigned for each full description of an item, 0 for no description, and 0.5 for a partial description. Results A total of 20 RCTs were included and 8 RCTs were excluded. Their reporting quality was low. The average scores for the following items were relatively lower, 0.150 for settings where data collected; 0.250 for sample size estimation; 0.500 for sequence generation of randomization; 0.325 for allocation concealment; 0.150 for implementation; 0.475 for measurement of outcome; 0.150 for participant flow chart; 0.450 for adverse events; 0.450 for external validity; 0.400 for financial conflicts of interest; 0.250 for perioperative pharmacological treatment; 0.075 for perioperative nonphamacological treatment; 0.000 for participation of a trial methodologist; 0.350 for surgeon’s experience (years or position). Items with the lower scores were mainly in the methods and results section and surgical items. Conclusions The reporting quality of laparoscopic RCTs in these journals is low. Colorectal surgeons should rigorously evaluate reports in these journals before they apply to them in clinical practice.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality and influencing factors of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer. Methods RCTs of lung cancer with PRO as either primary or secondary endpoints were searched from PubMed, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases between January 1, 2010 and April 20, 2024. Reporting quality of included RCTs were assessed based on the CONSORT-PRO extension. Descriptive statistics and bivariate regression analysis were used to describe the reporting quality and analyze the factors influencing the reporting quality. Results A total of 740 articles were retrieved. After screening, 53 eligible RCTs of lung cancer with 22 780 patients were included. The patients were mainly with non-small cell lung cancer (84.91%), with the median sample size of the included studies was 364.0 (160.5, 599.5) patients. The primary PRO tool used was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60.38%). There were 52 (98.11%) studies whose PRO measured the domain of "symptom management of cough, dyspnea, fatigue, pain, etc.", and 45 (84.91%) studies measured "health-related quality of life". Multicenter studies accounted for 84.91%, and randomized non-blind trials accounted for 62.26%. PRO was used as the primary endpoint in 33.96% of the studies and as secondary endpoints in 66.04%. The reliability and validity of the PRO tools were explicitly mentioned in 11.32% and 7.55% of the studies, respectively. The average completeness of reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines was 60.00%, ranging from 25.00% to 93.00%. The main factors affecting the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting included sample size and publication year. For every increment in sample size, the completeness of reporting increased by 27.5% (SE=0.00, t=2.040, P=0.046). Additionally, studies published after 2018 had a 67.2% higher completeness of reporting compared to those published in or before 2018 (SE=17.8, t=–3.273, P=0.006). Conclusion The study reveals that the overall reporting quality of PRO in lung cancer RCTs is poor. Particularly, the reporting of PRO measures reliability and validity, PRO assumptions, applicability, and handling of missing data need further improvement. Future research should emphasize comprehensive adherence to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines.
Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We handsearched the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine to identify TCM RCTs. The revised CONSORT statement and Jadad scale combined with self-established criteria were applied. Results A total of 57 RCTs were identified of which there were 17 TCM RCTs. Some items in CONSORT checklist were completely reported in all TCM RCTs, such as abstract, inclusion and exclusion criteria, intervention, randomization sequence generation, description of statistic method, description of baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and explain results. Compared with the previous findings, there were more trials in this study to report allocation concealment, randomization implementation, use of flow chart and appliance. Only 3 RCTs (17.6%) reported acknowledgements. One RCT did not describe syndrome type of TCM, and 4 RCTs (23.5%) carried out dummy. The mean Jadad score was 4.35±1.11 in all trials, of which 11 RCTs (64.7) ranked 5 points. Conclusion The comprehensive quality of reporting of TCM RCTs published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine from 2001 to 2008 has been improved. After the publication of CONSORT statement and CONSORT for traditional Chinese medicine, the quality of reporting of TCM RCTs is improved. We are looking forward to improving the CONSORT for TCM.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 and to compare the reporting quality with that from 2004 to 2008. MethodsRCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals were collected through a computerized search of the CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases and manual searches of paper journals, all with a search timeframe from 2016 to 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement and two extensions (CONSORT extension for abstracts and CONSORT harms extension) were used to evaluate the RCTs. The criteria for reporting quality were the evaluation score, reporting proportion, and compliance proportion. The reporting quality of RCTs in the past 5 years was compared by year group. In addition, the RCT reporting quality from 2004 to 2008 was compared with that from 2016 to 2020. ResultsIn total, 226 RCTs were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the total evaluation score or abstract score from 2016 to 2020 (F=0.54, P=0.71; H=1.49, P=0.83). However, there were statistically significant differences in the harm scores from 2016 to 2020 (H=10.78, P=0.03). Further analysis of the items revealed statistically significant differences in the reporting proportion of items 16 and 19 (Fisher’s=8.61, P=0.04; χ2=11.63, P=0.02) and no significant differences in the other items (P>0.05). The reporting proportion of defined primary and secondary outcome indicators, allocation concealment, randomization implementation, outcomes and estimation, generalization, trial registration, and flow chart was <10% in each year. There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance proportion of RCT reporting quality from 2016 to 2020 versus 2004 to 2008 (39.54%±8.92% vs. 34.76%±9.16%, t=6.60, P<0.001). ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 is better than that from 2004 to 2008. However, the reporting quality of RCTs within the latter 5 years still have reporting deficiencies in important items, and many aspects still are needed to be improved and enhanced.
Objective To investigate the current situation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on compound salvia pellet (CSP) for angina pectoris and assess whether there is adequate evidence for clinical practice. Methods We collected all the published clinical studies on CSP for angina pectoris from 1994 to December 2005, and assessed each included report using the Jadad scale, the revised CONSORT statement and other self-edited items. Results We finally identified 115 RCTs. Among which, 1 scored 3 points, 6 scored 2 points, 106 scored 1 points and 2 socred 0 points. No RCT performed allocation concealment according to the CONSORT criteria, only 4 RCTs (3.5%) described the generation of the randomization sequence, among which 2 were quasi-randomized. No RCT provided randomization implementation,1 RCT (0.9%) carried out placebo control, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported endpoint, 9 RCTs (7.8%) adopted single blinding, 4 RCTs (3.5%) reported double blinding, 11 RCTs (9.6%) calculated statistical values, 2 RCTs (1.7%) provided the record of follow-up, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported negative outcome, 25 RCTs (21.8%) described adverse events, no RCT described how the sample size was estimated, and how an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and correlation analysis were reported, 1 RCT (0.9%) was multi-center, no RCT completed ethical approval and informed consent, 27 RCTs (23.5%) described syndrome type of TCM. Conclusion Currently, the methodology and reporting of studies on CSP for angina pectoris are not good enough to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice.
ObjectiveTo investigate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical trials involving Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. MethodsWe searched PubMed, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome. The methodological and reporting quality of included RCTs was respectively evaluated according to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 and the CONSORT 2010 statement, combined with complementary assessment by the characteristic indicators of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The methodological and reporting quality of included case series study was respectively assessed by the methods recommended by the Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the STROBE statement. ResultsA total of 27 clinical trials were included, involving 11 RCTs and 16 case series studies. According to the assessment tool of risk of bias of the Cochrane Handbook, 54.5% of the RCTs performed proper random method, 9.1% conducted allocation concealment and blinding, 72.7% selected intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis without the report of loss to follow-up, and no RCT existed selective reports. Corresponding to the characteristic indicators of TCM, 54.5% of the RCTs did not conduct TCM syndrome diagnosis, the curative effect standard of TCM syndrome was discrepant, and no RCT was multi-center study. The CONSORT 2010 statement indicated that no RCT explained sample size estimation, implementation details of randomization, flow diagram of participant, use of ITT and clinical trial registration. According to the items recommended by Britain's NICE, 6.25% of the case series studies were multi-center, 81.25% did not report clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and no case series study performed continuous patient recruitment and stratification analysis of outcome. The STROBE statement indicated that no case series study reported research design, sample size, flow chart, bias, limitations and generalizability. ConclusionThe quality of clinical trials about Xiaoyao San for chronic fatigue syndrome is still low in methodological and reporting aspects. It is suggested that the future clinical trials should be conducted with references of CONSORT statement and STROBE statement, to propel the modernization and internationalization of TCM.
Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) in China from 1999 to 2004 by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We randomly selected 13 journals of TCM including Chinese Journal of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine,ect using stratified sampling from about 100 journals of TCM in mainland China, and all issues of selected journals published from 1999 to 2004 were hand-searched according to the hand-search guideline developed by Cochrane Collaboration. All reviewers were trained in the method of evaluating RCTs . A comprehensive quality assessment of each RCT was completed using methods including the revised consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) checklist and Jadad scale. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results A total of 7422 RCTs were identified, and the percentage of RCTs was significantly increased by 18.6%, 23.9%, 27.5%, 28.8%, 33.0% and 35.6% from 1999 to 2004. The mean Jadad score was 1.03 ± 0.61 in all trials with 1 RCT with 5 points, 14 with 4 points, and 102 with 3 points, from 1999 to 2004, the mean Jadad score was 0.85±0.53 (n=746), 0.82±0.63 (n=941), 0.90±0.61 (n=1 243), 1.03±0.60 (n=1 325), 1.12±0.58 (n=1 533) and 1.20±0.62 (n=1 634) respectively, which was improved continuously but slowly. 39.4% of the items in CONSORT, which was equivalent to 11.82 (standard deviation=5.78) of a total of 30 items, were reported across those trials. Some important methodological components of RCTs such as sample size calculation (1.1%), randomization sequence (7.9%), allocation concealment (0.3%), implementation of the random allocation sequence (0.0%) , analysis of intention to treat (0.0%), were incompletely reported. Conclusion Our study suggests that the quality of reporting has been improved but still in poor status, which would urgently promote the establishment of the CONSORT for TCM.
Surrogate endpoints, defined as biomarkers or intermediate outcomes utilized in clinical trials to replace the ultimate targeted outcomes, have witnessed a growing prevalence in both clinical trials and drug-device approvals in recent years. To standardize the application and reporting of surrogate endpoints in clinical trial protocols and associated studies, relevant scholars published the SPIRIT-Surrogate and CONSORT-Surrogate reporting guidelines in the BMJ in July 2024. This article provides an interpretation of these guidelines in conjunction with published case studies, with the aim of offering references for domestic researchers, elevating the overall quality of related clinical trials, and eventually facilitating the enhancement of domestic healthcare level.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke. Methods Six databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMbase (1984 to December 2005), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1994 to December 2005), China Biomedicine Database disc (CBMdisc, 1980 to December 2005), VIP (a full text issues database of China, 1989 to December 2005) were searched systematically. Handsearch for further references was conducted. Language was limited to Chinese and English. We identified 74 RCTs that used acupuncture as an intervention and assessed the quality of these reports against the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).Results In regard to the items in the CONSORT statement, 54 (73%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Twenty-six (35%) mentioned the method of generating the random sequence, with 4 (5%) using a computer allocation. Only 6 (8%) RCTs had adequate allocation concealment, with 5 RCTs using sealed opaque envelopes and 1 RCT using centralized computer allocation. Only 8 (11%) RCTs used blinding, including 5 described as double-blind. Four (5%) RCTs reported the sample size calculation and 5 (7%) RCTs reported that an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. In regard to the items in STRICTA , only 4 (5%) RCTs reported the numbers of needles inserted. In 35 (47%) RCTs the needle type was reported, but only 26 (35%) mentioned the depths of insertion. Only 1 (1%) RCT mentioned the length of clinical experience and 6 (8%) RCTs reported the background of the acupuncture practitioners, but none stated the duration of their training.Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for acute ischemic stroke was low. The CONSORT statement and STRICTA should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture.