Volume 14 Supplement 3

Lupus 2012: New targets, new approaches

Open Access

Poor methodological reporting in lupus clinical trials found in Cochrane reviews

  • CH Goldsmith1, 2
Arthritis Research & Therapy201214(Suppl 3):A54

DOI: 10.1186/ar3988

Published: 27 September 2012

Background

Results of randomized clinical trials depend on the credibility of the methods reporting to support study findings.

Methods

We studied 24 trials from those in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with 'lupus' in the title and were printable. Each paper was scored by one reviewer using methodological criteria for design, allocation [1], blinding [24], reporting and imputation [5]. Scores used yes, no, or ? when it was unclear. Yes n (integer %) for all 24 papers are reported for each criterion.

Results

Design

Four (17%) papers had a sample size justification; 22 (92%) contained two groups and two (8%) contained three groups. Five (21%) stratified patients; yet two (8%) used stratification in the analysis.

Allocation

Six (25%) stated random numbers generated and three (12%) blocked the balance associated with the allocation ratio; yet zero (0%) used blocking in the analysis. Six (25%) used a randomization list concealed from the person deciding patient eligibility, zero (0%) provided an audit trail for randomization, one (4%) stated randomization integrity. Seven (29%) mentioned the randomization constructed with a computer program or random number table.

Blinding

Four (17%) stated the person deciding on the patient eligibility was blinded to block structure and eight (33%) claimed the study was double blinded, even though it was not clear who the two were; indeed one was really triple blinded! For three (12%) patient blinded, six (25%) therapy, four (17%) therapist, one (4%) other caregivers; two (8%) the outcome assessor; zero (0%) data analyst, zero (0%) manuscript writer.

Reporting/analysis

One (4%) checked statistical assumptions, 23 (96%) provided baseline data, not all for every patient randomized. Twenty-one (88%) provided P values for group comparisons, four (17%) provided confidence intervals and zero (0%) provided numbers needed to treat. One (4%) specified subgroups in advance [6], six (25%) adjusted for baseline differences as one of the reported analyses. Four (17%) stated statistical software, but not version, zero (0%) provided the computer used for analyses.

Imputation

Seventeen (71%) had missing data, yet one (4%) mentioned using last observation carried forward, zero (0%) used multiple imputation and zero (0%) mentioned impact on study conclusions [5]. Two (8%) provided a flowchart as suggested by CONSORT [7, 8].

Conclusion

Lupus trials did not report many of the methodological criteria that give papers credibility and validity to the study being reported. Reporting should be improved in future reports of studies of patients with lupus and related health problems. Possibly using the CONSORT checksheets would help make lupus papers more credible [7, 8].

Declarations

Acknowledgements

CHG holds the Maureen and Milan Ilich/Merck Chair in Statistics for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Arthritis Research Centre of Canada
(2)
Simon Fraser University

References

  1. Meinert CL: Clinical Trials. Design, Conduct and Analysis. 1986, New York: Oxford University PressView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Akl EA, Sun X, Busse JW, Johnston BC, Briel M, Mulla S, You JJ, Bassler D, Lamontagne F, Vera C, Alshurafa M, Katsios CM, Heels-Ansdell D, Zhou Q, Mills EJ, Guyatt GH: Specific instructions for unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012, 65: 262-267. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Montori VM, Bhandari M, Devereauz PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Guyatt GH: In the dark. The reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epdemiol. 2002, 55: 787-790. 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00446-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Miller LE, Stewart ME: The blind leading the blind: use and misuse of blinding in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011, 23: 240-243.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Molenburgs G, Kenward MG: Missing Data in Clinical Studies. 2007, Toronto, ON: J Wiley & SonsView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, You JJ, Akl EA, Mejza F, Bala MM, Bassler D, Mertz D, Diaz-Granados N, Vandvik PO, Makaga G, Srinathan SK, Dahm P, Johnston BC, Alonso-Coello P, Hassouneh B, Walter SD, Heels-Ansdell D, Bhatnager N, Altman DG, Guyatt GH: Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2012, 344: e1553-10.1136/bmj.e1553.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010, 340: c332-10.1136/bmj.c332.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ: The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005, 26: 480-487. 10.1016/j.cct.2005.02.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Goldsmith; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement