Developing a register of randomised controlled trials in primary care.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the number, nature, site of publication, and feasibility of identifying randomised controlled trials relevant to primary care. DESIGN--Review of literature using three strategies: approaching journal editors, Medline search, and manual search of individual journals. SETTING--Journals containing publications of studies based in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--The number, site of publication, and subject of trials identified. RESULTS--No journal had a system which enabled identification of all the randomised controlled trials it published. 266 trials relevant to primary care were identified from 110 different journals during 1987-91 by Medline. Of these, only 62 trials were published in primary care journals. Hand searching of seven major primary care research journals showed that between 13% and 38% of the trials had been missed by the Medline search. Of the trials identified, 47 (18%) were concerned with mental disease (including neuroses, tobacco misuse and alcohol misuse) and 43 (16%) were concerned with hypertension. CONCLUSION--Given the diversity of publication sources and topics, this supports the need for a centrally based register of randomised controlled trials that may be relevant to primary care overviews in the future.     

Indexation of psychiatric journals from low‐ and middle‐income countries: a survey and a case study

There is a marked underepresentation of low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) in the psychiatric literature, which may reflect an overall low representation of LAMIC publications in databases of indexed journals. This paper investigates the worldwide distribution of indexed psychiatric journals. A survey in both Medline and ISI Web of Science was performed in order to identify journals in the field of psychiatry according to their country of origin. Two hundred and twenty-two indexed psychiatric journals were found. Of these, 213 originated from high-income countries and only nine (4.1%) from middle-income countries. None were found in low-income countries. We also present the experience of a LAMIC psychiatric journal, the Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, in its recent indexation process. This case study may serve as an example for other LAMIC journals to pursue indexation in major databases as a strategy to widen the international foundation of psychiatric research. There is an important need for the inclusion of LAMIC psychiatric publications in the major indexation databases. This process will require multiple agents to partner with journals from LAMIC to improve their quality and strengthen their chances of being indexed.     

Impact of Including Korean Randomized Controlled Trials in Cochrane Reviews of Acupuncture

Objective

Acupuncture is commonly practiced in Korea and is regularly evaluated in clinical trials. Although many Cochrane reviews of acupuncture include searches of both English and Chinese databases, there is no information on the value of searching Korean databases. This study aimed to investigate the impact of searching Korean databasesand journals for trials eligible for inclusion in existing Cochrane acupuncture reviews.

Methods

We searched 12 Korean databases and seven Korean journals to identify randomised trials meeting the inclusion criteria for acupuncture reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We compared risk of bias assessments of the Korean trials with the trials included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Where possible, we added data from the Korean trials to the existing meta-analyses in the relevant Cochrane review and conducted sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results.

Results

Sixteen Korean trials (742 participants) met the inclusion criteria for eight Cochrane acupuncture reviews (125 trials; 13,041 participants). Inclusion of the Korean trials provided data for 20% of existing meta-analyses (24 out of 120). Inclusion of the Korean trials did not change the direction of effect in any of the existing meta-analyses. The effect size and heterogeneity remained mostly unchanged. In only one meta-analysis did the significance change. Compared to the studies included in the Cochrane acupuncture reviews, the risk of bias in the Korean trials was higher in terms of outcome assessor blinding and allocation concealment.

Conclusions

Many Korean studies contributed additional data to the existing meta-analyses in Cochrane acupuncture reviews. Although inclusion of these studies did not alter the results of the meta-analyses, comprehensive searches of the literature are important to avoid potential language bias. The identification and inclusion of eligible Korean trials should be considered for reviews of acupuncture.     

Media Coverage,Journal Press Releases and Editorials Associated with Randomized and Observational Studies in High-Impact Medical Journals: A Cohort Study

Background

Publication of clinical research findings in prominent journals influences health beliefs and medical practice, in part by engendering news coverage. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be most influential in guiding clinical practice. We determined whether study design of clinical research published in high-impact journals influences media coverage.

Methods and Findings

We compared the incidence and amount of media coverage of RCTs with that of observational studies published in the top 7 medical journals between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2013. We specifically assessed media coverage of the most rigorous RCTs, those with >1000 participants that reported ‘hard’ outcomes. There was no difference between RCTs and observational studies in coverage by major newspapers or news agencies, or in total number of news stories generated (all P>0.63). Large RCTs reporting ‘hard’ outcomes did not generate more news coverage than small RCTs that reported surrogate outcomes and observational studies (all P>0.32). RCTs were more likely than observational studies to attract a journal editorial (70% vs 46%, P = 0.003), but less likely to be the subject of a journal press release (17% vs 50%, P<0.001). Large RCTs that reported ‘hard’ outcomes did not attract an editorial more frequently than other studies (61% vs 58%, P>0.99), nor were they more likely to be the subject of a journal press release (14% vs 38%, P = 0.14).

Conclusions

The design of clinical studies whose results are published in high-impact medical journals is not associated with the likelihood or amount of ensuing news coverage.     

Content analysis of oncology-related pharmaceutical advertising in a peer-reviewed medical journal

Background

The oncology market represents one of the largest pharmaceutical markets in any medical field, and printed advertising in medical journals is an important channel by which pharmaceutical companies communicate with healthcare professionals. The aim of the present study was to analyze the volume and content of and trends and changes in oncology-related advertising intended for healthcare professionals in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Information that could be included in advertisements to promote drug development and improve treatment strategies for cancer patients is discussed on the basis of the results of the analysis.

Methods/Principal Findings

Overall, 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages in a leading oncology medical journal published (by the American Society of Clinical Oncology) between January 2005 and December 2009 were analyzed. The advertisements targeting pharmaceuticals and clinical trials, in particular, were reviewed. A total of 6,720 advertisements covering 13,039 pages were included in the analysis. For the years 2005–2009, the percentages of total journal pages dedicated to advertising were 24.0%, 45.7%, 49.8%, 46.8%, and 49.8%, respectively. Package insert information and efficacy and safety explanations appeared in more than 80% of advertisements intended for pharmaceutical promotion. From 2005 to 2009, the overall quantity of drug advertisements decreased by approximately 13%, whereas advertisements calling for the enrollment of patients into registration trials increased by approximately 11%.

Conclusion/Significance

Throughout the study period, oncology-related pharmaceutical advertisements occupied a considerable number of pages relative to other journal content. The proportion of advertisements on ongoing clinical trials increased progressively throughout the study period.     

Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study

Background

Transparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials'' influence on journal impact factors and revenue.

Methods and Findings

We sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996–1997 and 2005–2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005–2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005–2006.

Conclusions

Publication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals'' revenue and impact. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical, methodological, and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the treatment of asthma and to compare those published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper based journals.DesignAnalysis of studies identified from Medline, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, personal collections, and reference lists.StudiesArticles describing a systematic review or a meta-analysis of the treatment of asthma that were published as a full report, in any language or format, in a peer reviewed journal or the Cochrane Library.Results50 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. More than half were published in the past two years. Twelve reviews were published in the Cochrane Library and 38 were published in 22 peer reviewed journals. Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently used outcome, but few reviews evaluated the effect of treatment on costs or patient preferences. Forty reviews were judged to have serious or extensive flaws. All six reviews associated with industry were in this group. Seven of the 10 most rigorous reviews were published in the Cochrane Library.ConclusionsMost reviews published in peer reviewed journals or funded by industry have serious methodological flaws that limit their value to guide decisions. Cochrane reviews are more rigorous and better reported than those published in peer reviewed journals.     

CONSORT Item Reporting Quality in the Top Ten Ranked Journals of Critical Care Medicine in 2011: A Retrospective Analysis

IntroductionReporting randomised controlled trials is a key element in order to disseminate research findings. The CONSORT statement was introduced to improve the reporting quality. We assessed the adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomised controlled trials published 2011 in the top ten ranked journals of critical care medicine (ISI Web of Knowledge 2011, Thomson Reuters, London UK).MethodsDesign. We performed a retrospective cross sectional data analysis. Setting. This study was executed at the University Hospital of RWTH, Aachen. Participants. We selected the following top ten listed journals according to ISI Web of Knowledge (Thomson Reuters, London, UK) critical care medicine ranking in the year 2011: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, CHEST, Critical Care, Journal of Neurotrauma, Resuscitation, Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Shock and Minerva Anestesiologica. Main outcome measures. We screened the online table of contents of each included journal, to identify the randomised controlled trials. The adherence to the items of the CONSORT Checklist in each trial was evaluated. Additionally we correlated the citation frequency of the articles and the impact factor of the respective journal with the amount of reported items per trial.ResultsWe analysed 119 randomised controlled trials and found, 15 years after the implementation of the CONSORT statement, that a median of 61,1% of the checklist-items were reported. Only 55.5% of the articles were identified as randomised trials in their titles. The citation frequency of the trials correlated significantly (rs = 0,433; p<0,001 and r = 0,331; p<0,001) to the CONSORT statement adherence. The impact factor showed also a significant correlation to the CONSORT adherence (r = 0,386; p<0,001).ConclusionThe reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in the field of critical care medicine remains poor and needs considerable improvement.     

A systematic review of compression treatment for venous leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and cost effectiveness of compression systems for treating venous leg ulcers. METHODS: Systematic review of research. Search of 19 electronic databases including Medline, CINAHL, and Embase. Relevant journals and conference proceedings were hand searched and experts were consulted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of healing and proportion of ulcers healed within a time period. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, with no restriction on date or language, that evaluated compression as a treatment for venous leg ulcers. RESULTS: 24 randomised controlled trials were included in the review. The research evidence was quite weak: many trials had inadequate sample size and generally poor methodology. Compression seems to increase healing rates. Various high compression regimens are more effective than low compression. Few trials have compared the effectiveness of different high compression systems. CONCLUSIONS: Compression systems improve the healing of venous leg ulcers and should be used routinely in uncomplicated venous ulcers. Insufficient reliable evidence exists to indicate which system is the most effective. More good quality randomised controlled trials in association with economic evaluations are needed, to ascertain the most cost effective system for treating venous leg ulcers.     

An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Scores and Impact Factors with Different Citation Time Windows: A Case Study of 28 Ophthalmologic Journals

Background

An important attribute of the traditional impact factor was the controversial 2-year citation window. So far, several scholars have proposed using different citation time windows for evaluating journals. However, there is no confirmation whether a longer citation time window would be better. How did the journal evaluation effects of 3IF, 4IF, and 6IF comparing with 2IF and 5IF? In order to understand these questions, we made a comparative study of impact factors with different citation time windows with the peer-reviewed scores of ophthalmologic journals indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database.

Methods

The peer-reviewed scores of 28 ophthalmologic journals were obtained through a self-designed survey questionnaire. Impact factors with different citation time windows (including 2IF, 3IF, 4IF, 5IF, and 6IF) of 28 ophthalmologic journals were computed and compared in accordance with each impact factor’s definition and formula, using the citation analysis function of the Web of Science (WoS) database. An analysis of the correlation between impact factors with different citation time windows and peer-reviewed scores was carried out.

Results

Although impact factor values with different citation time windows were different, there was a high level of correlation between them when it came to evaluating journals. In the current study, for ophthalmologic journals’ impact factors with different time windows in 2013, 3IF and 4IF seemed the ideal ranges for comparison, when assessed in relation to peer-reviewed scores. In addition, the 3-year and 4-year windows were quite consistent with the cited peak age of documents published by ophthalmologic journals.

Research Limitations

Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or similar patterns.

Originality/ Value

We designed the survey questionnaire ourselves, specifically to assess the real influence of journals. We used peer-reviewed scores to judge the journal evaluation effect of impact factors with different citation time windows. The main purpose of this study was to help researchers better understand the role of impact factors with different citation time windows in journal evaluation.     

The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials

Objective To summarise comparisons of randomised clinical trials and non-randomised clinical trials, trials with adequately concealed random allocation versus inadequately concealed random allocation, and high quality trials versus low quality trials where the effect of randomisation could not be separated from the effects of other methodological manoeuvres.Design Systematic review.Selection criteria Cohorts or meta-analyses of clinical trials that included an empirical assessment of the relation between randomisation and estimates of effect.Data sources Cochrane Review Methodology Database, Medline, SciSearch, bibliographies, hand searching of journals, personal communication with methodologists, and the reference lists of relevant articles.Main outcome measures Relation between randomisation and estimates of effect.Results Eleven studies that compared randomised controlled trials with non-randomised controlled trials (eight for evaluations of the same intervention and three across different interventions), two studies that compared trials with adequately concealed random allocation and inadequately concealed random allocation, and five studies that assessed the relation between quality scores and estimates of treatment effects, were identified. Failure to use random allocation and concealment of allocation were associated with relative increases in estimates of effects of 150% or more, relative decreases of up to 90%, inversion of the estimated effect and, in some cases, no difference. On average, failure to use randomisation or adequate concealment of allocation resulted in larger estimates of effect due to a poorer prognosis in non-randomly selected control groups compared with randomly selected control groups.Conclusions Failure to use adequately concealed random allocation can distort the apparent effects of care in either direction, causing the effects to seem either larger or smaller than they really are. The size of these distortions can be as large as or larger than the size of the effects that are to be detected.

Key messages

• Empirical studies support using random allocation in clinical trials and ensuring that the allocation process is concealed—that is, that assignment is impervious to any influence by the people making the allocation
• The effect of not using concealed random allocation can be as large or larger than the effects of worthwhile interventions
• On average, failure to use concealed random allocation results in overestimates of effect due to a poorer prognosis in non-randomly selected control groups compared with randomly selected control groups, but it can result in underestimates of effect, reverse the direction of effect, mask an effect, or give similar estimates of effect
• The adequacy of allocation concealment may be a more sensitive measure of bias in clinical trials than scales used to assess the quality of clinical trials
• It is a paradox that the unpredictability of randomisation is the best protection against the unpredictability of the extent and direction of bias in clinical trials that are not properly randomised

     

Internal and external validity of cluster randomised trials: systematic review of recent trials

Objectives To assess aspects of the internal validity of recently published cluster randomised trials and explore the reporting of information useful in assessing the external validity of these trials.Design Review of 34 cluster randomised trials in primary care published in 2004 and 2005 in seven journals (British Medical Journal, British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice, Preventive Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics).Data sources National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed.Data extraction To assess aspects of internal validity we extracted data on appropriateness of sample size calculations and analyses, methods of identifying and recruiting individual participants, and blinding. To explore reporting of information useful in assessing external validity we extracted data on cluster eligibility, cluster inclusion and retention, cluster generalisability, and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to health providers in clusters.Results 21 (62%) trials accounted for clustering in sample size calculations and 30 (88%) in the analysis; about a quarter were potentially biased because of procedures surrounding recruitment and identification of patients; individual participants were blind to allocation status in 19 (56%) and outcome assessors were blind in 15 (44%). In almost half the reports, information relating to generalisability of clusters was poorly reported, and in two fifths there was no information about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.Conclusions Cluster randomised trials are essential for evaluating certain types of interventions. Issues affecting their internal validity, such as appropriate sample size calculations and analysis, have been widely disseminated and are now better addressed by researchers. Blinding of those identifying and recruiting patients to allocation status is recommended but is not always carried out. There may be fewer barriers to internal validity in trials in which individual participants are not recruited. External validity seems poorly addressed in many trials, yet is arguably as important as internal validity in judging quality as a basis for healthcare intervention.     

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

Many research-funding agencies now require open access to the results of research they have funded, and some also require that researchers make available the raw data generated from that research. Similarly, the journal Trials aims to address inadequate reporting in randomised controlled trials, and in order to fulfil this objective, the journal is working with the scientific and publishing communities to try to establish best practice for publishing raw data from clinical trials in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Common issues encountered when considering raw data for publication include patient privacy – unless explicit consent for publication is obtained – and ownership, but agreed-upon policies for tackling these concerns do not appear to be addressed in the guidance or mandates currently established. Potential next steps for journal editors and publishers, ethics committees, research-funding agencies, and researchers are proposed, and alternatives to journal publication, such as restricted access repositories, are outlined.     

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. This study explores the relationship between hyper-prolific authors and a journal’s editorial team, finding a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications.     

Comparison of Journal Self-Citation Rates between Some Chinese and Non-Chinese International Journals

Background

The past 3 decades have witnessed a boost in science development in China; in parallel, more and more Chinese scientific journals are indexed by the Journal Citation Reports issued by Thomson Reuters (SCI). Evaluation of the performance of these Chinese SCI journals is necessary and helpful to improve their quality. This study aimed to evaluate these journals by calculating various journal self-citation rates, which are important parameters influencing a journal impact factor.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We defined three journal self-citation rates, and studied these rates for 99 Chinese scientific journals, almost exhausting all Chinese SCI journals currently available. Likewise, we selected 99 non-Chinese international (abbreviated as ‘world’) journals, with each being in the same JCR subject category and having similar impact factors as their Chinese counterparts. Generally, Chinese journals tended to be higher in all the three self-citation rates than world journal counterparts. Particularly, a few Chinese scientific journals had much higher self-citation rates.

Conclusions/Significance

Our results show that generally Chinese scientific journals have higher self-citation rates than those of world journals. Consequently, Chinese scientific journals tend to have lower visibility and are more isolated in the relevant fields. Considering the fact that sciences are rapidly developing in China and so are Chinese scientific journals, we expect that the differences of journal self-citation rates between Chinese and world scientific journals will gradually disappear in the future. Some suggestions to solve the problems are presented.     

Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Background

The reporting of outcomes within published randomized trials has previously been shown to be incomplete, biased and inconsistent with study protocols. We sought to determine whether outcome reporting bias would be present in a cohort of government-funded trials subjected to rigorous peer review.

Methods

We compared protocols for randomized trials approved for funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medical Research Council of Canada) from 1990 to 1998 with subsequent reports of the trials identified in journal publications. Characteristics of reported and unreported outcomes were recorded from the protocols and publications. Incompletely reported outcomes were defined as those with insufficient data provided in publications for inclusion in meta-analyses. An overall odds ratio measuring the association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance was calculated stratified by trial. Finally, primary outcomes specified in trial protocols were compared with those reported in publications.

Results

We identified 48 trials with 68 publications and 1402 outcomes. The median number of participants per trial was 299, and 44% of the trials were published in general medical journals. A median of 31% (10th–90th percentile range 5%–67%) of outcomes measured to assess the efficacy of an intervention (efficacy outcomes) and 59% (0%–100%) of those measured to assess the harm of an intervention (harm outcomes) per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant efficacy outcomes had a higher odds than nonsignificant efficacy outcomes of being fully reported (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval 1.5–5.0). Primary outcomes differed between protocols and publications for 40% of the trials.

Interpretation

Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials.Selective reporting of results from randomized trials can occur either at the level of end points within published studies (outcome reporting bias)¹ or at the level of entire trials that are selectively published (study publication bias).² Outcome reporting bias has previously been demonstrated in a broad cohort of published trials approved by a regional ethics committee.¹ The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) — the primary federal funding agency, known before 2000 as the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) — recognized the need to address this issue and conducted an internal review process in 2002 to evaluate the reporting of results from its funded trials. The primary objectives were to determine (a) the prevalence of incomplete outcome reporting in journal publications of randomized trials; (b) the degree of association between adequate outcome reporting and statistical significance; and (c) the consistency between primary outcomes specified in trial protocols and those specified in subsequent journal publications.     

Transparency of Outcome Reporting and Trial Registration of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Background

Confidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.

Methods

Eligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013–2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.

Results

Of 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).

Conclusions

The quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.     

Association between suicide attempts and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objective To establish whether an association exists between use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and suicide attempts.Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Data sources Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration''s register of controlled trials (November 2004) for trials produced by the Cochrane depression, anxiety, and neurosis group.Selection of studies Studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing an SSRI with either placebo or an active non-SSRI control. We included clinical trials that evaluated SSRIs for any clinical condition. We excluded abstracts, crossover trials, and all trials whose follow up was less than one week.Results Seven hundred and two trials met our inclusion criteria. A significant increase in the odds of suicide attempts (odds ratio 2.28, 95% confidence 1.14 to 4.55, number needed to treat to harm 684) was observed for patients receiving SSRIs compared with placebo. An increase in the odds ratio of suicide attempts was also observed in comparing SSRIs with therapeutic interventions other than tricyclic antidepressants (1.94, 1.06 to 3.57, 239). In the pooled analysis of SSRIs versus tricyclic antidepressants, we did not detect a difference in the odds ratio of suicide attempts (0.88, 0.54 to 1.42).Discussion Our systematic review, which included a total of 87 650 patients, documented an association between suicide attempts and the use of SSRIs. We also observed several major methodological limitations in the published trials. A more accurate estimation of risks of suicide could be garnered from investigators fully disclosing all events.