Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
To systematically identify the strategy and frequency of spin in reports of bariatric surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with statistically nonsignificant primary endpoint. ⋯ Spin occurred in a high proportion of bariatric surgery RCTs with a statistically nonsignificant primary endpoint.
-
To systematically identify the strategy and frequency of spin in reports of bariatric surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with statistically nonsignificant primary endpoint. ⋯ Spin occurred in a high proportion of bariatric surgery RCTs with a statistically nonsignificant primary endpoint.
-
The Trials within Cohorts design aims to reduce recruitment difficulties and disappointment bias in pragmatic trials. On cohort enrollment, broad informed consent for randomization is asked, after which cohort participants can be randomized to interventions or serve as controls without further notification. We evaluated patients' recollection, understanding, and acceptance of broad consent in a clinical oncology setting. ⋯ Patients adequately remember giving broad consent for randomization shortly after cohort enrollment and after being offered an intervention, but recollection is lower in those never selected for interventions. Patients are acceptant of serving as control without further notifications.
-
We assessed the reporting of replicability items with the BayesWatch guidelines and crucial items of Bayesian analyses with the Reporting Of Bayes Used in clinical STudies (ROBUST) guidelines in reports of phase III trials. ⋯ CRD42017054929.
-
Prior epidemics of high-mortality human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-1) in 2003, have driven the characterization of compounds that could be possibly active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Presently, no approved treatment or prophylaxis is available for COVID-19. We comment on the existing COVID-19 research methodologies in general and the published reporting. Given the media attention and claims of effectiveness, we chose chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin, as an area of COVID-19 research to examine. ⋯ We found that the COVID-19 research methodology is very poor in the area of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine research. In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19.