Cargando…

Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials. METHODS: Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bührer, Jonas, Del Giovane, Cinzia, Gencer, Baris, Adam, Luise, Lyko, Christina, Feller, Martin, Da Costa, Bruno R., Aujesky, Drahomir, Bauer, Douglas C., Rodondi, Nicolas, Moutzouri, Elisavet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10250579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37304064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.04.010
_version_ 1785055780740792320
author Bührer, Jonas
Del Giovane, Cinzia
Gencer, Baris
Adam, Luise
Lyko, Christina
Feller, Martin
Da Costa, Bruno R.
Aujesky, Drahomir
Bauer, Douglas C.
Rodondi, Nicolas
Moutzouri, Elisavet
author_facet Bührer, Jonas
Del Giovane, Cinzia
Gencer, Baris
Adam, Luise
Lyko, Christina
Feller, Martin
Da Costa, Bruno R.
Aujesky, Drahomir
Bauer, Douglas C.
Rodondi, Nicolas
Moutzouri, Elisavet
author_sort Bührer, Jonas
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials. METHODS: Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high-impact journals. Information on adequate vs inadequate reporting of cointerventions, blinding, risk of bias due to deviations of intended interventions (low vs high/some concerns), funding (nonindustry vs industry), design (superiority vs noninferiority), and results were assessed by 2 reviewers. The association with effect sizes was assessed using meta-regression random-effect analysis, expressed as ratios of odds ratios (ROR). RORs of >1.0 indicated that trials with the methodological factor pointing to lower quality report larger treatment estimates. RESULTS: In total, 164 trials were included. Of the 164 trials, 124 (74%) did not adequately report cointerventions; 89 of the 164 trials (54%) provided no information regarding cointerventions, and 70 of the 164 (43%) were at risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Moreover, 86 of the 164 (53%) were at risk of bias due to deviation of intended interventions. Of the 164 trials, 144 (88%) were funded by the industries. Trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions had larger treatment estimates for the primary end point (ROR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15; I(2)=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I(2)=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I(2)=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I(2)=0%) was found. CONCLUSION: We conclude that trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions showed larger treatment effect estimates, potentially indicating overestimation of therapeutic benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero Identifier: CRD42017072522:
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10250579
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102505792023-06-10 Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study Bührer, Jonas Del Giovane, Cinzia Gencer, Baris Adam, Luise Lyko, Christina Feller, Martin Da Costa, Bruno R. Aujesky, Drahomir Bauer, Douglas C. Rodondi, Nicolas Moutzouri, Elisavet Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Original Article OBJECTIVE: To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials. METHODS: Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high-impact journals. Information on adequate vs inadequate reporting of cointerventions, blinding, risk of bias due to deviations of intended interventions (low vs high/some concerns), funding (nonindustry vs industry), design (superiority vs noninferiority), and results were assessed by 2 reviewers. The association with effect sizes was assessed using meta-regression random-effect analysis, expressed as ratios of odds ratios (ROR). RORs of >1.0 indicated that trials with the methodological factor pointing to lower quality report larger treatment estimates. RESULTS: In total, 164 trials were included. Of the 164 trials, 124 (74%) did not adequately report cointerventions; 89 of the 164 trials (54%) provided no information regarding cointerventions, and 70 of the 164 (43%) were at risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Moreover, 86 of the 164 (53%) were at risk of bias due to deviation of intended interventions. Of the 164 trials, 144 (88%) were funded by the industries. Trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions had larger treatment estimates for the primary end point (ROR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15; I(2)=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I(2)=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I(2)=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I(2)=0%) was found. CONCLUSION: We conclude that trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions showed larger treatment effect estimates, potentially indicating overestimation of therapeutic benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero Identifier: CRD42017072522: Elsevier 2023-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10250579/ /pubmed/37304064 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.04.010 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Bührer, Jonas
Del Giovane, Cinzia
Gencer, Baris
Adam, Luise
Lyko, Christina
Feller, Martin
Da Costa, Bruno R.
Aujesky, Drahomir
Bauer, Douglas C.
Rodondi, Nicolas
Moutzouri, Elisavet
Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
title Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
title_full Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
title_fullStr Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
title_full_unstemmed Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
title_short Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
title_sort inadequate reporting of cointerventions, other methodological factors, and treatment estimates in cardiovascular trials: a meta-epidemiological study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10250579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37304064
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.04.010
work_keys_str_mv AT buhrerjonas inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT delgiovanecinzia inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT gencerbaris inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT adamluise inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT lykochristina inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT fellermartin inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT dacostabrunor inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT aujeskydrahomir inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT bauerdouglasc inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT rodondinicolas inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy
AT moutzourielisavet inadequatereportingofcointerventionsothermethodologicalfactorsandtreatmentestimatesincardiovasculartrialsametaepidemiologicalstudy