Reporting N-of-1 Trials to Professional Audiences

Abstract

Whether an N-of-1 trial is undertaken to inform a particular clinical decision or to test a hypothesis, publishing it in the professional literature may inform other clinical decisions and contribute to the research evidence base. A well-reported N-of-1 trial will provide the transparency needed for readers to critically appraise the work and determine if it is applicable to their situation. A well reported trial can be replicated and, once replicated, results can be aggregated to provide stronger and more compelling evidence. This chapter will consider how to describe the individual and aggregated data of N-of-1 trials for professional audiences. It describes in detail a reporting guideline for N-of-1 trials, CENT (Consort Extension for reporting N-of-1 Trials). CENT provides a structured format to ensure that the main journal report is sufficiently detailed that it can be critically appraised and replicated. As well, prospective registration of the trial and data deposit is discussed as means to further increase the transparency and completeness of reporting.

Keywords

N-of-1 trials Reporting guideline CENT CONSORT Checklist Transparency Replication Publishing Protocol registration Data deposit 

References

  1. AllTrials Campaign (2013) All trials Manifesto. http://www.alltrials.net/all–trials/. Available at: http://www.alltrials.net/all-trials/. Accessed 8 May 2014
  2. American Psychological Association (2012) Electronic sources and locator information. In: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 187–188. Available at: http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/what-is-doi.aspx Google Scholar
  3. Anon (2013) GenBank overview. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/. Accessed 12 May 2014
  4. Begg C et al (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276(8):637–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boutron I et al (2008a) Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 148(4):295–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boutron I et al (2008b) Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 148(4):W60–W66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvert M et al (2013) Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA 309(8):814–822. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23443445. Accessed 10 July 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan A-W et al (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291(20):2457–2465. Available at: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=198809. Accessed 6 May 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Creative Commons (2014) About the licenses – Creative Commons. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/. Accessed 12 May 2014
  10. Creative Commons (2014) About CC0 public domain dedication – “no rights reserved.” Available at: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0. Accessed 12 May 2014
  11. Donegan S et al (2013) Combining individual patient data and aggregate data in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis: individual patient data may be beneficial if only for a subset of trials. Stat Med 32(6):914–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR (2011) Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, MR000031. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dwan K et al (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PloS One 8(7):e66844. Available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0066844#pone-0066844-g022. Accessed 29 Apr 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards JL (2004) Research and societal benefits of the global biodiversity information facility. BioScience 54(6):485–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. El Emam K (2008) Heuristics for de-identifying health data. IEEE Secur Priv 6(4):58–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. El Emam K et al (2012) De-identification methods for open health data: the case of the Heritage Health Prize claims dataset. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e33. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3374547&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 1 May 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gage NA, Lewis TJ (2013) Analysis of effect for single-case design research. J Appl Sport Psychol 25(1):46–60. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.660673. Accessed 29 Apr 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gagnier JJ et al (2006) Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 144(5):364–367. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435606002502. Accessed 5 May 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldacre B (2014) AllTrials. Available at: http://www.alltrials.net. Accessed 5 May 2014
  20. Guyatt GH et al (2000) Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. JAMA 284(10):1290–1296. Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/doi/10.1001/jama.284.10.1290 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haynes RB et al (1990) More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 113(1):69–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoffmann TC et al (2014) Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 348(mar07_3):g1687. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/689456/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.g1687. Accessed 29 Apr 2014
  23. Hopewell S et al (2008) CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 5(1):e20. Available at: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050020#pmed-0050020-t001 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Horner RH et al (2012) Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Educ Treat Child 35(2):269–290. Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/education_and_treatment_of_children/v035/35.2.horner.html. Accessed 5 May 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2013) Clinical trials. The Stationary Office Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Hrynaszkiewicz I, Cockerill MJ (2012) Open by default: a proposed copyright license and waiver agreement for open access research and data in peer-reviewed journals. BMC Res Notes 5(1):494. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1756-0500/5/494. Accessed 1 May 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hrynaszkiewicz I et al (2010) Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers. Trials 11(1):9. Available at: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/9. Accessed 29 Apr 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Huić M, Marušić M, Marušić A (2011) Completeness and changes in registered data and reporting bias of randomized controlled trials in ICMJE journals after trial registration policy. N. Siegfried, ed. PloS One 6(9):e25258. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025258. Accessed 1 May 2014
  29. Huth EJ (1987) Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 106(4):626. Available at: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=701794. Accessed 9 May 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. N Engl J Med 336(4):309–315. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168827897803066. Accessed 5 May 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ioannidis JPA et al (2004) Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 141(10):781–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Irwig L, Glasziou P, March L (1995) Ethics of N-of-1 trials. Lancet 345(8948):469. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7861872. Accessed 5 May 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. JAMA (2014) Instructions for authors. Available at: https://jama.jamanetwork.com/public/instructionsForAuthors.aspx#CONSORTFlowDiagramandChecklist. Accessed 6 May 2014
  34. Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311(7001):376–380. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2550437&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 2 May 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Krleza-Jerić K, Lemmens T (2009) 7th revision of the declaration of Helsinki: good news for the transparency of clinical trials. Croat Med J 50(2):105–110. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681053/. Accessed 1 May 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lefebvre C et al (2013) Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future? Syst Rev 2(1):78. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24066664. Accessed 17 Oct 2013PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. MacPherson H et al (2010) Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): extending the CONSORT statement. J Evid Based Med 3(3):140–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahon JL, Feagan BG, Laupacis A (1995) Ethics of N-of-1 trials. Lancet 345(8955):989. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673695907386. Accessed 5 May 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Moher D (2009) Guidelines for reporting health care research: advancing the clarity and transparency of scientific reporting. Can J Anaesth 56(2):96–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 1:2. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=32201&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 10 Jul 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Moher D et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. Available at: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000097 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Moher D et al (2010a) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869–c869. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.c869. Accessed 6 Jul 2010PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Moher D et al (2010b) Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 7(2):e1000217. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2821895&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Moher D et al (2011) Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 64(7):718–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Morris C (2008) The EQUATOR network: promoting the transparent and accurate reporting of research. Dev Med Child Neurol 50(10):723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Nakayama T et al (2005) Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. J Med Libr Assoc 93(2):237–242. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1082941&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 29 Apr 2014PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Nikles J et al (2013) Do pilocarpine drops help dry mouth in palliative care patients: a protocol for an aggregated series of n-of-1 trials. BMC Palliat Care 12(1):39. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/12/39. Accessed 29 Apr 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Norris SL et al (2014) Clinical trial registries are of minimal use for identifying selective outcome and analysis reporting. Res Synth Met. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jrsm.1113. Accessed 19 Mar 2014
  49. Pleticha R (2014) Guest post: people with rare diseases need results from all trials. All Trials News. Available at: http://www.alltrials.net/2014/guest-post-people-with-rare-diseases-need-results-from-all-trial/. Accessed 12 May 2014
  50. Price JD, Grimley Evans J (2002) N-of-1 randomized controlled trials (‘N-of-1 trials’): singularly useful in geriatric medicine. Age Ageing 31(4):227–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Punja S et al (2014) Ethical framework for N-of-1 trials: clinical care, quality improvement, or human subjects research? In: Kravitz R, Duan N, De. M. C. N.-1G. Panel (eds) Design and implementation of N-of-1 trials: a user’s guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  52. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G (2010) Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 340:c221. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.c221. Accessed 6 May 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ripple AM et al (2011) A retrospective cohort study of structured abstracts in MEDLINE, 1992–2006. J Med Libr Assoc 99(2):160–163. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3066587&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 29 Apr 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Schardt C et al (2007) Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC 7(1):16. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/7/16. Accessed 7 May 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c332–c332. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.c332. Accessed 13 Apr 2011PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Science.gc.ca (2011) Open access: research data. Available at: http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=2BBD98C5-1. Accessed 12 May 2014
  57. Shamseer L, Sampson M, Bukutu C, Schmid CH, Nikles J, Tate R, Johnston BC, Zucker D, Shadish WR, Kravitz R, Guyatt G, Altman DG, Moher D, Vohra S, CENT group (2015) CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 350:h1793. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1793 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sharma S, Harrison JE (2006) Structured abstracts: do they improve the quality of information in abstracts? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130(4):523–530. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889540606008936. Accessed 29 Apr 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Smyth RMD et al (2011) Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. BMJ 342:c7153. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3016816&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 6 May 2014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sollaci LBMGP (2004) The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr Assoc 92(3):364–367. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442179/. Accessed 29 Apr 2014PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevenson HA, Harrison JE (2009) Structured abstracts: do they improve citation retrieval from dental journals? J Orthod 36(1):52–60; discussion 15–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Tufte E (1990) Envisioning information. Graphics Press, CheshireGoogle Scholar
  63. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L et al (2012a) Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11(11):MR000030. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152285. Accessed 8 May 2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF et al (2012b) Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 1:60. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3564748&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Vohra S, Shamseer L, Sampson M, Bukutu C, Schmid CH, Tate R, Nikles J, Zucker DR, Kravitz R, Guyatt G, Altman DG, Moher D, CENT group (2015) CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 statement. BMJ 350:h1738. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1738 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Wen J et al (2008) The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol 61(8):770–775. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18411041. Accessed 27 Nov 2010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilczynski NL et al (1995) Preliminary assessment of the effect of more informative (structured) abstracts on citation retrieval from MEDLINE. MEDINFO 8(Pt 2):1457–1461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. World Medical Association General Assembly (2013) Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310(20):2191–2194. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24141714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Sampson
    • 1
  • Larissa Shamseer
    • 2
  • Sunita Vohra
    • 3
  1. 1.Children’s Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations