• Pain · Dec 2012

    Review Meta Analysis

    Adherence to CONSORT harms-reporting recommendations in publications of recent analgesic clinical trials: an ACTTION systematic review.

    Although improving, 'harms reporting' in analgesic clinical trials is generally poor. On average the 101 studied analgesic trials met only 60% of harms reporting recommendations.

    summary
    • Shannon M Smith, R Daniel Chang, Anthony Pereira, Nirupa Shah, Ian Gilron, Nathaniel P Katz, Allison H Lin, Michael P McDermott, Bob A Rappaport, Michael C Rowbotham, Cristina Sampaio, Dennis C Turk, and Robert H Dworkin.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA. shannon1_smith@urmc.rochester.edu
    • Pain. 2012 Dec 1;153(12):2415-21.

    AbstractRecommendations for harms (ie, adverse events) reporting in randomized clinical trial publications were presented in a 2004 extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Our objectives were to assess harms reporting in 3 major pain journals (European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®) to determine whether harms reporting improved following publication of the 2004 CONSORT recommendations, and to examine study factors associated with adequacy of harms reporting. A total of 101 randomized, double-blind, noninvasive pharmacologic trials were identified in the 2000-2003 (epoch 1) and 2008-2011 (epoch 2) issues of these journals. Out of 10 reporting recommendations, the mean number fulfilled was 6.08 (SD2.65). Although more harms recommendations were fulfilled in epoch 2 (m(2)=6.49, SD2.66) than in epoch 1 (m(1)=5.39, SD2.52; P=0.04), only the recommendation to report harms per arm was satisfied by >90% of trials in epoch 2, whereas <60% reported withdrawals due to harms. Several trial characteristics (study design, participant type, pain type, frequency of treatment administration, treatment administration method, sponsor, and number of randomized participants) were significantly associated with harms reporting. However, when trial characteristics and epoch were entered into a multiple regression analysis, only trials studying pain patients, those using oral treatments, and industry-sponsored trials were associated with better harms reporting. Despite some improvement in harms reporting, greater improvement is needed to provide informative, consistent reporting of adverse events and safety in analgesic clinical trials.Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

    summary
    1

    Although improving, 'harms reporting' in analgesic clinical trials is generally poor. On average the 101 studied analgesic trials met only 60% of harms reporting recommendations.

    Daniel Jolley  Daniel Jolley
     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…