Cargando…

Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Young, Amber E, Davies, Anna, Bland, Sophie, Brookes, Sara, Blazeby, Jane M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30772859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025135
_version_ 1783399625100623872
author Young, Amber E
Davies, Anna
Bland, Sophie
Brookes, Sara
Blazeby, Jane M
author_facet Young, Amber E
Davies, Anna
Bland, Sophie
Brookes, Sara
Blazeby, Jane M
author_sort Young, Amber E
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research. METHODS: Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including ‘burn’, ‘scald’ ‘thermal injury’ and ‘RCT’. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together. RESULTS: 147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24). CONCLUSIONS: This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060908.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6398699
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63986992019-03-20 Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care Young, Amber E Davies, Anna Bland, Sophie Brookes, Sara Blazeby, Jane M BMJ Open Research Methods INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research. METHODS: Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including ‘burn’, ‘scald’ ‘thermal injury’ and ‘RCT’. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together. RESULTS: 147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24). CONCLUSIONS: This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060908. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6398699/ /pubmed/30772859 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025135 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Young, Amber E
Davies, Anna
Bland, Sophie
Brookes, Sara
Blazeby, Jane M
Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
title Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
title_full Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
title_fullStr Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
title_short Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
title_sort systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398699/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30772859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025135
work_keys_str_mv AT youngambere systematicreviewofclinicaloutcomereportinginrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofburncare
AT daviesanna systematicreviewofclinicaloutcomereportinginrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofburncare
AT blandsophie systematicreviewofclinicaloutcomereportinginrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofburncare
AT brookessara systematicreviewofclinicaloutcomereportinginrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofburncare
AT blazebyjanem systematicreviewofclinicaloutcomereportinginrandomisedcontrolledtrialsofburncare