Journal of tissue viability · 2019
Adverse event reporting and trial registration in venous leg ulcer trials published since the 2001 CONSORT statement revision: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jull Andrew, Biggs Rowan
Аннотация
AIM: To be in accord with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, all important adverse events in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be reported, as well as trial registration. Neither concern has been investigated in venous leg ulcer trials. We therefore aimed to quantify and explore compliance with adverse event reporting and trials registration in RCTs that reported interventions for treating venous leg ulceration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL for studies reported between 2001 and 2017. Included studies must have been described as randomised controlled trials evaluating any intervention in a VLU population. Data was then extracted by one author into a standard form and checked by a second author.
RESULTS: We screened 3100 titles and identified 204 trials involving pharmaceuticals (82), medicated and non-medicated devices (102), organisational (5) or other interventions (15) published in 76 journals. Eighty-four trials reported adverse events (41.2%), while 18 reported no events occurred (8.8%) and 78 did not report adverse events (38.2%). Types of adverse events reported included all-cause (20.1%), ulcer-related only (38.2%), treatment-related only (11.3%) and serious adverse events only (1.0%). Only 38 trials were registered (18.6%). Trial registration was associated with reporting of any adverse events (Odds Ratio 3.0, 95%CI 1.1-7.9), as was the trial being a pharmaceutical trial (Odds Ratio 2.9, 95%CI 1.5-5.7) or a multicentre trial (Odds Ratio 4.2, 95%CI 2.2-8.1).
CONCLUSION: Adverse event reporting in VLU trials is variable with about one third of trials not reporting on adverse events at all. Trials registration is a the modifiable factor associated with better reporting of adverse events. Journal editors could explore how they can promote trials registration to enhance better reporting of harms in VLU trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL for studies reported between 2001 and 2017. Included studies must have been described as randomised controlled trials evaluating any intervention in a VLU population. Data was then extracted by one author into a standard form and checked by a second author.
RESULTS: We screened 3100 titles and identified 204 trials involving pharmaceuticals (82), medicated and non-medicated devices (102), organisational (5) or other interventions (15) published in 76 journals. Eighty-four trials reported adverse events (41.2%), while 18 reported no events occurred (8.8%) and 78 did not report adverse events (38.2%). Types of adverse events reported included all-cause (20.1%), ulcer-related only (38.2%), treatment-related only (11.3%) and serious adverse events only (1.0%). Only 38 trials were registered (18.6%). Trial registration was associated with reporting of any adverse events (Odds Ratio 3.0, 95%CI 1.1-7.9), as was the trial being a pharmaceutical trial (Odds Ratio 2.9, 95%CI 1.5-5.7) or a multicentre trial (Odds Ratio 4.2, 95%CI 2.2-8.1).
CONCLUSION: Adverse event reporting in VLU trials is variable with about one third of trials not reporting on adverse events at all. Trials registration is a the modifiable factor associated with better reporting of adverse events. Journal editors could explore how they can promote trials registration to enhance better reporting of harms in VLU trials.