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.     

Corticosteroids in acute traumatic brain injury: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in the treatment of acute traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of corticosteroids in acute traumatic brain injury. Summary odds ratios were estimated as an inverse variance weighted average of the odds ratios for each study. SETTING: Randomised trials available by March 1996. SUBJECTS: The included trials with outcome data comprised 2073 randomised participants. RESULTS: The effect of corticosteroids on the risk of death was reported in 13 included trials. The pooled odds ratio for the 13 trials was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.12). Pooled absolute risk reduction was 1.8% (-2.5% to 5.7%). For the 10 trials that reported death or disability the pooled odds ratio was 0.90 (0.72 to 1.11). For infections of any type the pooled odds ratio was 0.92 (0.69 to 1.23) and for the seven trials reporting gastrointestinal bleeding it was 1.05 (0.44 to 2.52). With only those trials with the best quality of concealment of allocation, the pooled odds ratio estimates for death and death or disability became closer to unity. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of randomised controlled trials of corticosteroids in acute traumatic brain injury shows that there remains considerable uncertainty over their effects. Neither moderate benefits nor moderate harmful effects can be excluded. The widely practicable nature of the drugs and the importance of the health problem suggest that large simple trials are feasible and worth while to establish whether there are any benefits from use of corticosteroids in this setting.     

Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review

Background

Recruitment of participants into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for successful trial conduct. Although there have been two previous systematic reviews on related topics, the results (which identified specific interventions) were inconclusive and not generalizable. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of recruitment strategies for participation in RCTs.

Methods and Findings

A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline for reporting of systematic reviews, that compared methods of recruiting individual study participants into an actual or mock RCT were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies. From over 16,000 titles or abstracts reviewed, 396 papers were retrieved and 37 studies were included, in which 18,812 of at least 59,354 people approached agreed to participate in a clinical RCT. Recruitment strategies were broadly divided into four groups: novel trial designs (eight studies), recruiter differences (eight studies), incentives (two studies), and provision of trial information (19 studies). Strategies that increased people''s awareness of the health problem being studied (e.g., an interactive computer program [relative risk (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–2.18], attendance at an education session [RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.28], addition of a health questionnaire [RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.14–1.66]), or a video about the health condition (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11–2.74), and also monetary incentives (RR1.39, 95% CI 1.13–1.64 to RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.28–1.84) improved recruitment. Increasing patients'' understanding of the trial process, recruiter differences, and various methods of randomisation and consent design did not show a difference in recruitment. Consent rates were also higher for nonblinded trial design, but differential loss to follow up between groups may jeopardise the study findings. The study''s main limitation was the necessity of modifying the search strategy with subsequent search updates because of changes in MEDLINE definitions. The abstracts of previous versions of this systematic review were published in 2002 and 2007.

Conclusion

Recruitment strategies that focus on increasing potential participants'' awareness of the health problem being studied, its potential impact on their health, and their engagement in the learning process appeared to increase recruitment to clinical studies. Further trials of recruitment strategies that target engaging participants to increase their awareness of the health problems being studied and the potential impact on their health may confirm this hypothesis. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Overcoming beta-agonist tolerance: high dose salbutamol and ipratropium bromide. Two randomised controlled trials

Background

Asthmatics treated with long-acting beta-agonists have a reduced bronchodilator response to moderate doses of inhaled short acting beta-agonists during acute bronchoconstriction. It is not known if the response to higher doses of nebulised beta-agonists or other bronchodilators is impaired. We assessed the effect of long-acting beta-agonist treatment on the response to 5 mg nebulised salbutamol and to ipratropium bromide.

Methods

Two double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies of inhaled formoterol 12 μg twice daily in patients with asthma. High-dose salbutamol: 36 hours after the last dose of 1 week of formoterol or placebo treatment, 11 subjects inhaled methacholine to produce a 20% fall in FEV₁. Salbutamol 5 mg was then administered via nebuliser and the FEV₁ was monitored for 20 minutes. Ipratropium: 36 hours after the last dose of 1 week of formoterol or placebo treatment, 11 subjects inhaled 4.5% saline to produce a 20% fall in FEV₁. Salbutamol 200 μg or ipratropium bromide 40 μg was then inhaled and the FEV₁ was monitored for 30 minutes. Four study arms compared the response to each bronchodilator after formoterol and placebo. Analyses compared the area under the bronchodilator response curves, adjusting for changes in pre-challenge FEV₁, dose of provocational agent and FEV₁ fall during the challenge procedure.

Results

The response to nebulised salbutamol was 15% lower after formoterol therapy compared to placebo (95% confidence 5 to 25%, p = 0.008). The response to ipratropium was unchanged.

Conclusion

Long-acting beta-agonist treatment induces tolerance to the bronchodilator effect of beta-agonists, which is not overcome by higher dose nebulised salbutamol. However, the bronchodilator response to ipratropium bromide is unaffected.     

Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective To evaluate the most appropriate surgical method of hysterectomy (abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic) for women with benign disease.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Biological Abstracts.Selection of studies Only randomised controlled trials were selected; participants had to have benign gynaecological disease; interventions had to comprise at least one hysterectomy method compared with another; and trials had to report primary outcomes (time taken to return to normal activities, intraoperative visceral injury, and major long term complications) or secondary outcomes (operating time, other immediate complications of surgery, short term complications, and duration of hospital stay).Results 27 trials (total of 3643 participants) were included. Return to normal activities was quicker after vaginal than after abdominal hysterectomy (weighted mean difference 9.5 (95% confidence interval 6.4 to 12.6) days) and after laparoscopic than after abdominal hysterectomy (difference 13.6 (11.8 to 15.4) days), but was not significantly different for laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy (difference -1.1 (-4.2 to 2.1) days). There were more urinary tract injuries with laparoscopic than with abdominal hysterectomy (odds ratio 2.61 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 5.60)), but no other intraoperative visceral injuries showed a significant difference between surgical approaches. Data were notably absent for many important long term patient outcome measures, where the analyses were underpowered to detect important differences, or they were simply not reported in trials.Conclusions Significantly speedier return to normal activities and other improved secondary outcomes (shorter duration of hospital stay and fewer unspecified infections or febrile episodes) suggest that vaginal hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy where possible. Where vaginal hysterectomy is not possible, laparoscopic hysterectomy is preferable to abdominal hysterectomy, although it brings a higher chance of bladder or ureter injury.     

Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study

ObjectivesTo examine the frequency and quality of reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials.DesignSearch of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 1980 to 1997 to identify trials from all disciplines, from oncology, and from cardiovascular medicine that reported on quality of life. Assessment of abstracts from articles published from 1993 to 1996. Assessment of a sample of full reports with a standardised instrument.ResultsDuring 1980-97 reporting on quality of life increased from 0.63% to 4.2% for trials from all disciplines, from 1.5% to 8.2% for cancer trials, and from 0.34% to 3.6% for cardiovascular trials. Of 364 abstracts, 65% reported on drug interventions. Of a sample of 67 full reports, authors of 48 (72%) used 62 established quality of life instruments. In 15 reports (22%) authors developed their own measures, and in 2 (3%) methods were unclear. Response rates were given in 38 (57%), and complete reporting on all items and scales occurred in 31 (46%).ConclusionsLess than 5% of all randomised controlled trials reported on quality of life, and this proportion was below 10% even for cancer trials. A plethora of instruments was used in different studies, and the reporting of methods and results was often inadequate. Standards for the measurement and reporting of quality of life in clinical trials research need to be developed.

Key messages

• We examined the reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials listed in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register
• Although reporting on quality of life increased over time, fewer than 5% of trials overall and fewer than 10% of cancer trials included quality of life in 1997
• Among 67 articles selected at random for detailed examination, a wide range of established and self developed measures of quality of life were used
• Only about half of trials gave response rates, and less than half reported on all items and scales used
• Standards for assessing and reporting quality of life in clinical research trials need to be developed

     

Nonadherence to treatment protocol in published randomised controlled trials: a review

ABSTRACT: This review aimed to ascertain the extent to which nonadherence to treatment protocol is reported and addressed in a cohort of published analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). One hundred publications of RCTs, randomly selected from those published in BMJ, New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet during 2008, were reviewed to determine the extent and nature of reported nonadherence to treatment protocol, and whether statistical methods were used to examine the effect of such nonadherence on both benefit and harms analyses. We also assessed the quality of trial reporting of treatment protocol nonadherence and the quality of reporting of the statistical analysis methods used to investigate such nonadherence. Nonadherence to treatment protocol was reported in 98 of the 100 trials, but reporting on such nonadherence was often vague or incomplete. Forty-two publications did not state how many participants started their randomised treatment. Reporting of treatment initiation and completeness was judged to be inadequate in 64% of trials with short-term interventions and 89% of trials with long-term interventions. More than half (51) of the 98 trials with treatment protocol nonadherence implemented some statistical method to address this issue, most commonly based on per protocol analysis (46) but often labelled as intention to treat (ITT) or modified ITT (23 analyses in 22 trials). The composition of analysis sets for their benefit outcomes were not explained in 57% of trials, and 62% of trials that presented harms analyses did not define harms analysis populations. The majority of defined harms analysis populations (18 out of 26 trials, 69%) were based on actual treatment received, while the majority of trials with undefined harms analysis populations (31 out of 43 trials, 72%) appeared to analyse harms using the ITT approach. Adherence to randomised intervention is poorly considered in the reporting and analysis of published RCTs. The majority of trials are subject to various forms of nonadherence to treatment protocol, and though trialists deal with this nonadherence using a variety of statistical methods and analysis populations, they rarely consider the potential for bias introduced. There is a need for increased awareness of more appropriate causal methods to adjust for departures from treatment protocol, as well as guidance on the appropriate analysis population to use for harms outcomes in the presence of such nonadherence.