Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement

Background

Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed.

Objectives

(1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic (‘ENT’) journals.

Methods

Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types.

Results

Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%–94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%–76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%–76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6–38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts.     

Under-Representation of Women on Dental Journal Editorial Boards

Introduction

Each journal’s editorial and advisory board plays a critical role in resolving gender bias in the peer-review and publication process. Thus, this study aimed to quantify women’s participation in editorial and advisory boards of major dental journals. Gender data on editorial and advisory boards were extracted from major dental journals, which were then categorized by journal specialty focus. The gender of the editor-in-chief and associate editor-in-chief was noted to assess the effect of journal leadership on women’s participation in journal boards. For comparison purposes, data were also obtained regarding the percentage of women faculty for each dental specialty.

Results

Overall, in the major 69 dental journals, 14.8% of editorial board members were women. An one-way ANOVA analysis revealed statistically significant gender differences between journal specialty categories (p = 0.003) with some dental specialties’ journals demonstrating a relatively high participation of women as editorial board members. There was a significant positive correlation for various dental specialties between women’s representation in editorial and advisory boards and women in similar dental academic specialties (p = 0.02, r² = 0.55). Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the presence of women in journal editorial leadership and the percentage of women serving as advisory board members (p = 0.03). Our results confirmed that the under-representation of women on dental journal editorial boards was significantly different between dental science specialties. When there were more women in journal editorial leadership positions, there was a higher participation of women as editorial and advisory board members. Journals should increase the numbers of women on editorial boards in order to secure diversity, improve publication quality and recognize women’s contribution to dental science.     

Ultrasound enhanced prehospital thrombolysis using microbubbles infusion in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and design of the Sonolysis study

Background

The CONSORT Statement provides recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials. We assessed the extent to which leading medical journals that publish reports of randomized trials incorporate the CONSORT recommendations into their journal and editorial processes.

Methods

This article reports on two observational studies. Study 1: We examined the online version of 'Instructions to Authors' for 165 high impact factor medical journals and extracted all text mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers. Any mention of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or clinical trial registration were also sought and extracted. Study 2: We surveyed the editor-in-chief, or editorial office, for each of the 165 journals about their journal's endorsement of CONSORT recommendations and its incorporation into their editorial and peer-review processes.

Results

Study 1: Thirty-eight percent (62/165) of journals mentioned the CONSORT Statement in their online 'Instructions to Authors'; of these 37% (23/62) stated this was a requirement, 63% (39/62) were less clear in their recommendations. Very few journals mentioned the CONSORT extension papers. Journals that referred to CONSORT were more likely to refer to ICMJE guidelines (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.51 to 3.08) and clinical trial registration (RR 3.67; 95% CI 2.36 to 5.71) than those journals which did not. Study 2: Thirty-nine percent (64/165) of journals responded to the on-line survey, the majority were journal editors. Eighty-eight percent (50/57) of journals recommended authors comply with the CONSORT Statement; 62% (35/56) said they would require this. Forty-one percent (22/53) reported incorporating CONSORT into their peer-review process and 47% (25/53) into their editorial process. Eighty-one percent (47/58) reported including CONSORT in their 'Instructions to Authors' although there was some inconsistency when cross checking information on the journal's website. Sixty-nine percent (31/45) of journals recommended authors comply with the CONSORT extension for cluster trials, 60% (27/45) for harms and 42% (19/45) for non-inferiority and equivalence trials. Few journals mentioned these extensions in their 'Instructions to Authors'.

Conclusion

Journals should be more explicit in their recommendations and expectations of authors regarding the CONSORT Statement and related CONSORT extensions papers.     

Non-Invasive Continuous Respiratory Monitoring on General Hospital Wards: A Systematic Review

Background

Failure to recognize acute deterioration in hospitalized patients may contribute to cardiopulmonary arrest, unscheduled intensive care unit admission and increased mortality.

Purpose

In this systematic review we aimed to determine whether continuous non-invasive respiratory monitoring improves early diagnosis of patient deterioration and reduces critical incidents on hospital wards.

Data Sources

Studies were retrieved from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library, searched from 1970 till October 25, 2014.

Study Selection

Electronic databases were searched using keywords and corresponding synonyms ‘ward’, ‘continuous’, ‘monitoring’ and ‘respiration’. Pediatric, fetal and animal studies were excluded.

Data Extraction

Since no validated tool is currently available for diagnostic or intervention studies with continuous monitoring, methodological quality was assessed with a modified tool based on modified STARD, CONSORT, and TREND statements.

Data Synthesis

Six intervention and five diagnostic studies were included, evaluating the use of eight different devices for continuous respiratory monitoring. Quantitative data synthesis was not possible because intervention, study design and outcomes differed considerably between studies. Outcomes estimates for the intervention studies ranged from RR 0.14 (0.03, 0.64) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation to RR 1.00 (0.41, 2.35) for unplanned ICU admission after introduction of continuous respiratory monitoring,

Limitations

The methodological quality of most studies was moderate, e.g. ‘before-after’ designs, incomplete reporting of primary outcomes, and incomplete clinical implementation of the monitoring system.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this systematic review, implementation of routine continuous non-invasive respiratory monitoring on general hospital wards cannot yet be advocated as results are inconclusive, and methodological quality of the studies needs improvement. Future research in this area should focus on technology explicitly suitable for low care settings and tailored alarm and treatment algorithms.     

Associated Factors and Consequences of Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Yoga: A Systematic Review

Background

Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complementary therapy interventions seems to be associated with specific factors and to potentially distort the studies’ conclusions. This systematic review assessed associated factors of risk of bias and consequences for the studies’ conclusions in RCTs of yoga as one of the most commonly used complementary therapies.

Methods

Medline/PubMed, Scopus, IndMED and the Cochrane Library were searched through February 2014 for yoga RCTs. Risk of selection bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and regressed to a) publication year; b) country of origin; c) journal type; and d) impact factor using multiple logistic regression analysis. Likewise, the authors’ conclusions were regressed to risk of bias.

Results

A total of 312 RCTs were included. Impact factor ranged from 0.0 to 39.2 (median = 1.3); 60 RCT (19.2%) had a low risk of selection bias, and 252 (80.8%) had a high or unclear risk of selection bias. Only publication year and impact factor significantly predicted low risk of bias; RCTs published after 2001 (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 12.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.7, 94.0; p<0.001) and those published in journals with impact factor (adjusted OR = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.4, 4.9; p = 0.004) were more likely to have low risk of bias. The authors’ conclusions were not associated with risk of bias.

Conclusions

Risk of selection bias was generally high in RCTs of yoga; although the situation has improved since the publication of the revised CONSORT statement 2001. Pre-CONSORT RCTs and those published in journals without impact factor should be handled with increased care; although risk of bias is unlikely to distort the RCTs’ conclusions.     

Criteria-Based Audit of Quality of Care to Women with Severe Pre-Eclampsia and Eclampsia in a Referral Hospital in Accra,Ghana

Objectives

Severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are one of the major causes of maternal mortality globally. Reducing maternal morbidity and mortality demands optimizing quality of care. Criteria-based audits are a tool to define, assess and improve quality of care. The aim of this study was to determine applicability of a criteria-based audit to assess quality of care delivered to women with severe hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, and to assess adherence to protocols and quality of care provided at a regional hospital in Accra, Ghana.

Methods

Checklists for management of severe preeclampsia, hypertensive emergency and eclampsia were developed in an audit cycle based on nine existing key clinical care protocols. Fifty cases were audited to assess quality of care, defined as adherence to protocols. Analysis was stratified for complicated cases, defined as (imminent) eclampsia, perinatal mortality and/or one or more WHO maternal near miss C-criteria.

Results

Mean adherence to the nine protocols ranged from 15–85%. Protocols for ‘plan for delivery’ and ‘magnesium sulphate administration’ were best adhered to (85%), followed by adherence to protocols for ‘eclampsia’ (64%), ‘severe pre-eclampsia at admission’ (60%), ‘severe pre-eclampsia ward follow-up’ (53%) and ‘hypertensive emergency’ (53%). Protocols for monitoring were least adhered to (15%). No difference was observed for severe disease. Increased awareness, protocol-based training of staff, and clear task assignment were identified as contributors to better adherence.

Conclusion

A criteria-based audit is an effective tool to determine quality of care, identify gaps in standard of care, and allow for monitoring and evaluation in a health facility, ultimately resulting in improved quality of care provided and reduced maternal morbidity and mortality. In our audit, good adherence was observed for plan for delivery and treatment with magnesium sulphate. Substandard adherence to a number of protocols was identified, and points towards opportunities for targeted improvement strategies.     

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.

Methods

On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.

Results

We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.     

The Nurses’ Well-Being Index and Factors Influencing This Index among Nurses in Central China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Backgrounds/Objectives

A discussion and analysis of factors that contribute to nurses’ happiness index can be useful in developing effective interventions to improve nurses’ enthusiasm, sense of honor and pride and to improve the efficiency and quality of medical services.

Methods

In this study, 206 registered nurses at the 2011 annual encounter for 12 Hanchuan hospitals completed a questionnaire survey that covered three aspects of the well-being index and thus served as a comprehensive well-being and general information tool.

Results

Based on their index score, the nurses’ overall happiness level was moderate. The dimensions of the happiness index are listed in descending order of their contribution to the nurses’ comprehensive happiness levels: health concerns, friendly relationships, self-worth, altruism, vitality, positive emotions, personality development, life satisfaction and negative emotions. Four variables (positive emotion, life satisfaction, negative emotions, and friendly relationships) jointly explained 47.80% of the total variance of the happiness index; positive emotions had the greatest impact on the happiness index.

Conclusions

Appropriate nursing interventions can improve nurses’ happiness index scores, thereby increasing nurses’ motivation and promoting the development of their nursing practice.     

Quality of Life Analysis and Smoking Correlation in Symptomatic Spine Osteoarthritis: A Nationwide Health Survey Analysis of an Elderly Population with EQ-5D

Objectives

To analyze quality of life in people with symptomatic spine osteoarthritis (OA) using the results of a cross-sectional, nationwide survey.

Materials and Methods

This study used data from the Fifth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES V-5; 2010–2012). After excluding ineligible subjects, the total number of subjects in the study was 8,963, including 4,091 males and 4,872 females. All participants reported disabilities related to spine OA. Plain radiographs of the spine were taken for all participants.

Results

Age, sex, smoking, drinking, education, and income level were significantly related to spine OA morbidity (P<0.05). OA morbidity was significantly higher in female ex-smokers (OR; 2.94, P<0.05). Quality of life (EQ-5D: L1~5) was significantly compromised in the group with spine OA compared to the group without spine OA (P<0.05). Overall, LQ 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 domain scores were significantly higher in the group with spine OA (P<0.05). In the group with spine OA, quality of life was reduced on more than three questions for 34.3% of the group (EQ-5D: grade≥2); on two questions, for 18.5% of the group; and on one question, for 11.1% of the group. Mental stress, melancholy, and suicidal thinking were also more common in the group with spine OA (P<0.05). The group with radiographic spine OA but without symptoms did not have compromised EQ-5D scores, whereas the group with radiographic OA and symptoms showed a significantly reduced quality of life.

Conclusions

Quality of life was significantly reduced in the group with symptomatic spine OA in a large cross-sectional analysis. Physicians should consider quality of life in the treatment of patients with spine OA     

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements in Oncology – An Assessment of Their Methodological Quality

BackgroundConsensus statements and clinical practice guidelines are widely available for enhancing the care of cancer patients. Despite subtle differences in their definition and purpose, these terms are often used interchangeably. We systematically assessed the methodological quality of consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published in three commonly read, geographically diverse, cancer-specific journals. Methods Consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine’s standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.MethodsConsensus statements and clinical practice guidelines published between January 2005 and September 2013 in Current Oncology, European Journal of Cancer and Journal of Clinical Oncology were evaluated. Each publication was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) rigour of development and editorial independence domains. For assessment of transparency of document development, 7 additional items were taken from the Institute of Medicine''s standards for practice guidelines and the Journal of Clinical Oncology guidelines for authors of guidance documents.FindingsThirty-four consensus statements and 67 clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The rigour of development score for consensus statements over the three journals was 32% lower than that of clinical practice guidelines. The editorial independence score was 15% lower for consensus statements than clinical practice guidelines. One journal scored consistently lower than the others over both domains. No journals adhered to all the items related to the transparency of document development. One journal’s consensus statements endorsed a product made by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company in 64% of cases.ConclusionGuidance documents are an essential part of oncology care and should be subjected to a rigorous and validated development process. Consensus statements had lower methodological quality than clinical practice guidelines using AGREE II. At a minimum, journals should ensure that that all consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines adhere to AGREE II criteria. Journals should consider explicitly requiring guidelines to declare pharmaceutical company sponsorship and to identify the sponsor’s product to enhance transparency.     

Development of an In-Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire for the Chinese Population

Background

Patients’ satisfaction has been considered as a crucial measurement of health care quality. Our objective was to develop a reliable and practical questionnaire for the assessment of in-patients’ satisfaction in Chinese people, and report the current situation of in-patients’ satisfaction in the central south area of China through a large-scale cross-sectional study.

Design

In order to generate the questionnaire, we reviewed previous studies, interviewed related people, held discussions, refined questionnaire items after the pilot study, and finally conducted a large cross-sectional survey to test the questionnaire.

Setting

This study was conducted in three A-level hospitals in the Hunan province, China.

Results

There were 6640 patients in this large-scale survey (another 695 patients in the pilot study). A factor analysis on the data from the pilot study generated four dimensions, namely, doctors’ care quality, nurses’ care quality, quality of the environment and facilities, and comprehensive quality. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each dimension were above 0.7 and the inter-subscale correlation was between 0.72 and 0.83. The overall in-patient satisfaction rate was 89.6%.

Conclusion

The in-patient satisfaction questionnaire was proved to have optimal internal consistency, reliability, and validity.     

Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis

Background

Comprehensive monitoring of the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) requires complete and accurate reporting and methodology.

Objective

To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis and to explore the potential factors influencing articles’ quality.

Methods

The quality of the reporting and methodology was evaluated in relation to the adherence of papers to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR quality scale. The total scores for every criterion and for every article on the two standards were calculated. Data were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS17.0 and RevMan 5.1 in terms of publication time, category of reviews, category of journals, and funding resource.

Results

A total of 72 SRs/MAs was included, but no Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were obtained. The number of SRs/MAs ranged from 1 in 1998 to 15 in 2013; 88.1% used the QUADAS tool; the average overall scores by PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool were 19.9 and 5.4, respectively. Scores on some items showed substantial improvement after publication of PRISMA and AMSTAR. However, no reviews followed the criterion of protocol and registration, and only 11.1% of articles fulfilled the criterion of literature search. SRs/MAs from the Science Citation Index (SCI) were of better quality than non-SCI studies. Funding resource made no difference to quality. Regression analysis showed that time of publication and inclusion in the SCI were significantly correlated with total scores on the two standards.

Conclusion

The reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis has improved measurably since PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists released. It is hoped that CSR in this field will be produced. Literature searching and protocol criteria, as well as QUADAS-2 tool need to be addressed more in the future. Time of publication and SCI relate more to the overall quality of SRs/MAs than does funding resource.     

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.