Advertisement

Assessment of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolic disease based on the CONSORT statement

  • Ioannis LiampasEmail author
  • Antonios Chlinos
  • Vasileios Siokas
  • Alexandros Brotis
  • Efthimios Dardiotis
Article
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence based medicine. Ιt is crucial that RCTs have transparent reporting to facilitate their interpretation. The purpose of the present study is the evaluation of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in venous thromboembolism (VTE) based on the CONSORT statement. MEDLINE was meticulously searched, while quoted references by retrieved RCTs were manually screened. The primary objective was to establish the mean CONSORT compliance of RCTs for NOACs in VTE. Secondary objectives were the calculation of compliance per CONSORT item and the investigation for probable determining factors with regards to the reporting quality of RCTs. Reporting above 70% of the items was defined as adequate compliance to the CONSORT statement. A total of 83 articles were considered eligible. Mean adherence to the CONSORT statement was 61.84%, standard deviation (SD) = 18.72. Among retrieved studies, 35 (42.17%) reported above 70% of the items, while 48 (57.83%) described less than 70% of the items. Inter-rater agreement was satisfactory (Cohen’s kappa ≥ 0.75). Items with respect to randomization and blinding were principally underreported, whereas the rest of the methodological features and results were more sufficiently reported. Logistic regression failed to demonstrate significant effect for any of the factors investigated. Impact factor [odds ratio (OR) = 1.347, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.994, 1.826), p = 0.055], number of authors [OR = 1.277, 95% CI (0.975, 1.672), p = 0.076] and presentation of participant flow-diagram [OR = 55.358, 95% CI (0.914, 3351.765), p = 0.055], came closer to significance. Exploratory analysis revealed significant, strong, positive correlation between abstract and article adherence to the CONSORT guidelines (r = 0.851, p < 0.001). Reporting quality of RCTs for NOACs in VTE is moderate. A superior reporting quality is desirable, especially relating to randomization and blinding.

Keywords

CONSORT Randomized Controlled Trials New Oral Anticoagulants Venous thromboembolism Pulmonary embolism Deep vein thrombosis 

Notes

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The present paper is based on the evaluation of published studies. Therefore, patient consent and ethical approval of the study are not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342:1887–1892.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200006223422507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman DG, Bland JM (1999) Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 318:1209.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7192.1209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moher D, Pham B, Jones A et al (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352(9128):609–613.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hodkinson A, Gamble C, Smith CT (2016) Reporting of harms outcomes: a comparison of journal publications with unpublished clinical study reports of orlistat trials. Trials 17: 207.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1327-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ et al (2007) Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 36:847–857.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moher D, Simera I, Schulz KF, Hoey J, Altman DG (2008) Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med 6:13.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-6-13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM et al (2010) The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 340:723.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A et al (2006) Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 185:263–267Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S et al (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials the CONSORT statement. JAMA 276:637–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285:1987–1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group CONSORT (2010) Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 8:18.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:869.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting of Trials) (2001) Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 285(15):1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C et al (2002) Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 287(21):2801–2804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J et al (2016) Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 149(2):315–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ingrasciotta Y, Crisafulli S, Pizzimenti V, Marcianò I, Mancuso A, Andò G, Corrao S, Capranzano P, Trifirò G (2018) Pharmacokinetics of new oral anticoagulants: implications for use in routine care. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 14(10):1057–1069.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17425255.2018.1530213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen AT, Hamilton M, Mitchell SA, Phatak H, Liu X, Bird A, Tushabe D, Batson S (2015) Comparison of the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban in the initial and long-term treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(12):e0144856.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groff H, Azboy I, Parvizi J (2018) Differences in reported outcomes in industry-funded vs nonfunded studies assessing thromboprophylaxis after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33(11):3398–3401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xiao Zhai MD, Yiran Wang MD, Qingchun Mu MD et al (2015) Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in 3 leading diabetes journals from 2011 to 2013 following CONSORT statement: a system review. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(27):e1083.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM et al (2013) CONSORT compliance in surgical randomized trials: are we there yet? A systematic review. Ann Surg 258(6):872–878.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31829664b9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu LQ, Morris PJ, Pengel LH (2013) Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3-year overview. Transpl Int 26(3):300–306.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gnech M, Lovatt CA, McGrath M et al (2019) Quality of reporting and fragility index for randomized controlled trials in the vesicoureteral reflux literature: where do we stand? J Pediatr Urol 15:204–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Devos F, Ibrahim N, Foissac F et al (2018) Comparison of the quality of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in both nursing and medical journals: adherence to the CONSORT statement. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 15(6):447–454.  https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang YQ, Traore K, Ibrahim B et al (2018) Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology: review of adherence to the CONSORT statement. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 47:34.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-018-0277-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen YP, Chen L, Li WF et al (2017) Reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials evaluating combined chemoradiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 98(1):170–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.01.214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G (2007) The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg 5(6):413–422.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2007.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen M, Cui J, Zhang AL et al (2018) Adherence to CONSORT items in randomized controlled trials of integrative medicine for colorectal cancer published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med 24(2):115–124.  https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2017.0065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ziogas DC, Zintzaras E (2009) Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in acute and chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes as governed by the CONSORT statement. Ann Epidemiol 19(7):494–500.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nagai K, Saito AM, Saito TI et al (2017) Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review. Trials 18(1):625.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2360-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rikos D, Dardiotis E, Tsivgoulis G et al (2016) Reporting quality of randomized-controlled trials in multiple sclerosis from 2000 to 2015, based on CONSORT statement. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2016:135–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2016.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Janackovic K, Puljak L (2018) Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in the seven highest-ranking anesthesiology journals. Trials 19(1):591.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2976-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baulig C, Krummenauer F, Geis B et al (2018) Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts on age-related macular degeneration health care: a cross-sectional quantification of the adherence to CONSORT abstract reporting recommendations. BMJ Open 8(5):e021912.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chow JTY, Turkstra TP, Yim E et al (2018) The degree of adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines for the abstracts of randomised clinical trials published in anaesthesia journals: a cross-sectional study of reporting adherence in 2010 and 2016. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2018:942–948.  https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000880 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sriganesh K, Bharadwaj S, Wang M et al (2017) Quality of abstracts of randomized control trials in five top pain journals: a systematic survey. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 7:64–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Higgins JPT, Green S, eds (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Cochrane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Limb C et al (2016) Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: a before and after study. Int J Surg 30:169–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zheng SL, Chan FT, Maclean E et al (2016) Reporting trends of randomised controlled trials in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review. Open Heart 3(2):e000449.  https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2016-000449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chatzimanouil MKT, Wilkens L, Anders HJ (2019) Quantity and reporting quality of kidney research. J Am Soc Nephrol 30(1):13–22.  https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2018050515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stevanovic A, Schmitz S, Rossaint R et al (2015) CONSORT item reporting quality in the top ten ranked journals of critical care medicine in 2011: a retrospective analysis. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0128061.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tardy MP, Gal J, Chamorey E, Almairac F et al (2018) Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the treatment of adult patients with high-grade gliomas. Oncologist 23(3):337–345.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee SY, Teoh PJ, Camm CF et al (2013) Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 75(4):562–572.  https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182a5399e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim DY, Park HS, Cho S et al (2018) The quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in the dermatology literature in an era where the CONSORT statement is a standard. Br J Dermatol 180:1361–1367.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Parish AJ, Boyack KW, Ioannidis JPA (2018) Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLoS ONE 13(1):e0189742.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Nietzke F (2001) Family physicians' use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract 14:437–442Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology, School of MedicineUniversity Hospital of Larissa, University of ThessalyLarissaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgery, School of MedicineUniversity Hospital of Larissa, University of ThessalyLarissaGreece

Personalised recommendations