L. Susan Wieland

An evaluation of the completeness of safety reporting in reports of complementary and alternative medicine trials

BackgroundAdequate reporting of safety in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a pre-requisite for accurate and comprehensive profile evaluation of conventional as well as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. Clear and concise information on the definition, frequency, and severity of adverse events (AEs) is necessary for assessing the benefit-harm ratio of any intervention. The objectives of this study are to assess the quality of safety reporting in CAM RCTs; to explore the influence of different trial characteristics on the quality of safety reporting.MethodsSurvey of safety reporting in RCTs published in 2009 across 15 widely used CAM interventions identified from the Cochrane Collaborations CAM Field specialized register of trials. Primary outcome measures, the adequacy of reporting of AEs; was defined and categorized according to the CONSORT for harms extension; the percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the entire report and in the results section.ResultsTwo-hundred and five trials were included in the review. Of these, 15% (31/205) reported that no harms were observed during the trial period. Of the remaining 174 trials reporting any safety information, only 21% (36/174) had adequate safety reporting.For all trials, the median percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the results section was 2.6. Moreover, 69% (n = 141) of all trials devoted a lesser or equal percentage of words to safety compared to author affiliations. Of the predictor variables used in regression analysis, multicenter trials had more words devoted to safety in the results section than single centre trials (P = 0.045).ConclusionsAn evaluation of safety reporting in the reports of CAM RCTs across 15 different CAM interventions demonstrated that the reporting of harms was largely inadequate. The quality of reporting safety information in primary reports of CAM randomized trials requires improvement.

An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs).

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are abundant. The optimal reporting of SRs is critical to enable clinicians to use their findings to make informed treatment decisions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are widely used therefore it is critical that conduct and reporting of systematic research in this field be of high quality. Here, methodological and reporting characteristics of a sample of CAM-related SRs and a sample of control SRs are evaluated and compared. Methods MEDLINE® was searched to identify non-Cochrane SRs indexed from January 2010 to May 2011. Control SRs were retrieved and a search filter was used to identify CAM SRs. Citations were screened and publications that met a pre-specified definition of a SR were included. Pre-designed, standardized data extraction forms were developed to capture reporting and methodological characteristics of the included reviews. Where appropriate, samples were compared descriptively. Results A total of 349 SRs were identified, of which 174 were CAM-related SRs and 175 were conventional SRs. We compared 131 CAM-related non-Cochrane SRs to the 175 conventional non-Cochrane reviews. Fifty-seven percent (75/131) of CAM SRs specified a primary outcome compared to 21% (37/175) of conventional sample reviews. Reporting of publication bias occurred in less than 5% (6/131) of the CAM sample versus 46% (80/175) of the conventional sample of SRs. Source of funding was frequently and consistently under-reported. Less than 5% (11/306) of all SRs reported public availability of a review protocol. Conclusion The two samples of reviews exhibited different strengths and weaknesses. In some cases there were consistencies across items which indicate the need for continued improvements in reporting for all SR reports. We advise authors to utilise the PRISMA Statement or other SR guidance when reporting SRs.

Bibliometric and content analysis of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field specialized register of controlled trials

BackgroundThe identification of eligible controlled trials for systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions can be difficult. To increase access to these difficult to locate trials, the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field (CAM Field) has established a specialized register of citations of CAM controlled trials. The objective of this study is to describe the sources and characteristics of citations included in the CAM Field specialized register.MethodsBetween 2006 and 2011, regular searches for citations of CAM trials in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were supplemented with contributions of controlled trial citations from international collaborators. The specialized register was ‘frozen’ for analysis in 2011, and frequencies were calculated for publication date, language, journal, presence in MEDLINE, type of intervention, and type of medical condition.ResultsThe CAM Field specialized register increased in size from under 5,000 controlled trial citations in 2006 to 44,840 citations in 2011. Most citations (60%) were from 2000 or later, and the majority (71%) were reported in English; the next most common language was Chinese (23%). The journals with the greatest number of citations were CAM journals published in Chinese and non-CAM nutrition journals published in English. More than one-third of register citations (36%) were not indexed in MEDLINE. The most common CAM intervention type in the register was non-vitamin, non-mineral dietary supplements (e.g., glucosamine, fish oil) (34%), followed by Chinese herbal medicines (e.g., Astragalus membranaceus, Schisandra chinensis) (27%).ConclusionsThe availability of the CAM Field specialized register presents both opportunities and challenges for CAM systematic reviewers. While the register provides access to thousands of difficult to locate trial citations, many of these trials are of low quality and may overestimate treatment effects. When including these trials in systematic reviews, adequate analysis of their risk of bias is of utmost importance.

Probiotics and gastrointestinal conditions: An overview of evidence from the Cochrane Collaboration

Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiota are associated with a number of gastrointestinal (GI) conditions, including diarrhea, inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), and liver diseases. Probiotics, live microorganisms that may confer a health benefit to the host when consumed, are commonly used as a therapy for treating these GI conditions by means of modifying the composition or activity of the microbiota. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on probiotics and GI conditions available from Cochrane, a nonprofit organization that produces rigorous and high-quality systematic reviews of health interventions. Findings from this review will help provide more precise guidance for clinical use of probiotics and to identify gaps in probiotic research related to GI conditions.

Randomized Controlled Trials on Complementary and Traditional Medicine in the Korean Literature

Objective. This study aimed to identify all of the features of complementary and alternative (CAM) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Korean literature and then introduce English-speaking researchers to the bibliometric and risk of bias characteristics of this literature. Methods. Eleven electronic databases and sixteen Korean journals were searched to August 2013 for RCTs of CAM therapies. Key study characteristics were extracted and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations tool for assessing risk of bias. Results. Three hundred and sixty publications met our inclusion criteria. Complementary and traditional medicine RCTs in the Korean literature emerged in the mid-1990s and increased in the mid-2000s. The most common CAM interventions include acupuncture (59.4%) and herbal medicine (8.3%). The largest proportion of trials evaluated CAM for musculoskeletal conditions (20.7%). Adequate methods of randomization were reported in 41.7% of the RCTs, whereas only 8.3% reported adequate allocation concealment. A low proportion of trials reported participant blinding (34.2%) and outcome assessor blinding (22.5%). Conclusions. Korean CAM RCTs are typically omitted from systematic reviews resulting in the potential for language bias. This study will enable these trials of diverse quality to be identified and assessed for inclusion in future systematic reviews on CAM interventions.

Randomised clinical trials on acupuncture in the Korean literature: bibliometric analysis and methodological quality

Objective Acupuncture systematic reviewers have increasingly searched Chinese databases and journals to identify eligible randomised clinical trials (RCTs). However, reviewers have infrequently searched for eligible RCTs in Korean databases and journals. This study aimed to identify difficult to locate acupuncture RCTs in Korean databases and journals and to assess the characteristics and quality of the identified RCTs. Methods Eleven electronic databases and seven journals were searched up to December 2012. All RCTs using needle acupuncture were considered for inclusion. Key study characteristics were extracted and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Results One hundred and forty-three publications met our inclusion criteria. Acupuncture RCTs in the Korean literature emerged in the mid-1990s and increased in the mid-2000s. Diverse methods of acupuncture were used, including some methods unique to Korea (eg, Saam acupuncture). The largest proportion of trials evaluated acupuncture for musculoskeletal conditions (27.3%). The mean sample size was 44.3±25.3 per trial. Random sequence generation methods were reported in 44.8% of the RCTs, whereas only 11.9% reported methods of allocation concealment. A low proportion of trials reported participant blinding (32.9%) and outcome assessment blinding (18.9%). Conclusions Korean acupuncture trials, many of which evaluate acupuncture styles unique to Korea, are typically omitted from systematic reviews of acupuncture, resulting in the potential for language bias. The development of this database of difficult to locate Korean trials, which includes English language translations of abstracts, will enable these trials of varying quality to be assessed for inclusion in future acupuncture systematic reviews.

Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy–Effectiveness Spectrum: development of a new tool for systematic reviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Randomized trials may be designed to provide evidence more strongly related to efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. When systematic reviews are used to inform clinical or policy decisions, it is important to know the efficacy-effectiveness nature of the included trials. The objective of this study was to develop a tool to characterize randomized trials included in a systematic review on an efficacy-effectiveness continuum. METHODS We extracted rating domains and descriptors from existing tools and used a modified Delphi procedure to condense the domains and develop a new tool. The feasibility and interrater reliability of the tool was tested on trials from four systematic reviews. RESULTS The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool rates clinical trials on a five-point Likert scale in four domains: (1) participant characteristics, (2) trial setting, (3) flexibility of interventions, and (4) clinical relevance of interventions. When RITES was piloted on trials from three reviews by unaffiliated raters, ratings were variable (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.25-0.66 for the four domains); but, when RITES was used on one review by the review authors with expertise on the topic, the ratings were consistent (ICCs > 0.80. CONCLUSION RITES may help to characterize the efficacy-effectiveness nature of trials included in systematic reviews.

Design considerations of a randomized controlled trial of sedation level during hip fracture repair surgery: a strategy to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium in elderly patients:

Background Delirium is an acute change in mental status characterized by sudden onset, fluctuating course, inattention, disorganized thinking, and abnormal level of consciousness. The objective of the randomized controlled trial “A STrategy to Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients” (STRIDE) is to assess the effectiveness of light versus heavy sedation on delirium and other outcomes in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture repair surgery. Our goal is to describe the design considerations and lessons learned in planning and implementing the STRIDE trial. Methods Discussed are challenges encountered including (1) how to ensure that we quickly identify, assess the eligibility of, and randomize traumatic hip fracture patients; (2) how to implement interventions that involve continuous monitoring and adjustment during the surgery; and (3) how to measure and ascertain the primary outcome, delirium. Results To address the first challenge, we monitored the operating room schedule more actively than anticipated. We constructed and organized eligibility assessment data collection forms by purpose and by source of information needed to complete them. We decided that randomization needs to take place in the operating room. To address the second challenge, we designed and implemented a treatment protocol and covered the bispectral index monitor to prevent the Anesthesiologist/Anesthetist from being influenced by the bispectral index reading while administering the intervention. Finally, clinical assessment of delirium consisted of standardized interviews of the patient using validated instruments, interviews of those caring for the patient, and review of the medical record. A consensus panel made the final determination of a delirium diagnosis. We note that STRIDE is a single-center trial. The decisions we took may have different implications for multi-center trials. Conclusions Lessons learned are likely to provide useful information to others designing trials in emergency and surgical setting and for those who are interested in unbiased assessment of delirium.

A summary of a Cochrane review: Acupuncture or acupressure for induction of labour

Review authors in the Cochrane Collaboration conducted a review of the effects of acupuncture or acupressure for inducing labour. After searching for all relevant studies, they identified 7 studies comparing acupuncture to a sham (placebo) treatment, 8 studies comparing acupuncture to usual care, 1 study comparing acupuncture to sweeping of membranes, and 4 studies comparing acupressure to either usual care or a sham treatment. This summary presents the findings of the 7 studies comparing acupuncture to sham treatment. 1.1. Acupuncture and induction of labour Labour is induced when it is believed that the mother or baby will benefit from the birth of the baby, but labour has not yet started. Labour is usually induced by mechanical (e.g., sweeping of membranes) or pharmacological (e.g., prostaglandin drip) methods. However, some of these methods are uncomfortable, and may lead to harms to the mother. Many women are interested in alternative methods to induce labour, including acupuncture and acupressure. This review was carried out to summarize the evidence on the effects of acupuncture or acupressure for induction of labour. Important outcomes to measure are whether a vaginal birth occurred within 24 hours, whether a Caesarean-section had to be done, and whether the mother or baby died or had serious harms. Additional important outcomes include whether epidural analgesia is used for pain relief, whether instruments are used to assist vaginal birth, whether other methods are used to induce labour, and how long labour lasts.

Yoga for treatment of urinary incontinence in women

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness and safety of yoga for treatment of urinary incontinence in women, compared to no specific treatment, to another active treatment, or to an active treatment without adjuvant yoga, with a focus on patient symptoms and quality of life.