Summary The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, ...full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.
Following publication of the PRISMA statement, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York in England began to develop an international prospective register of ...systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. The objectives were to reduce unplanned duplication of reviews and provide transparency in the review process, with the aim of minimizing reporting bias.
An international advisory group was formed and a consultation undertaken to establish the key items necessary for inclusion in the register and to gather views on various aspects of functionality. This article describes the development of the register, now called PROSPERO, and the process of registration.
PROSPERO offers free registration and free public access to a unique prospective register of systematic reviews across all areas of health from all around the world. The dedicated web-based interface is electronically searchable and available to all prospective registrants. At the moment, inclusion in PROSPERO is restricted to systematic reviews of the effects of interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions, for which there is a health-related outcome.Ideally, registration should take place before the researchers have started formal screening against inclusion criteria but reviews are eligible as long as they have not progressed beyond the point of completing data extraction.The required dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration.Submitted registration forms are checked against the scope for inclusion in PROSPERO and for clarity of content before being made publicly available on the register, rejected, or returned to the applicant for clarification.The public records include an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the review has been completed, and links to resulting publications when provided by the authors.
There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO.In October 2011, PROSPERO contained 200 records of systematic reviews being undertaken in 26 countries around the world on a diverse range of interventions.
Support for prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews has been gathering momentum.1-3 The PRISMA statement, a guideline for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ...studies that evaluate health-care interventions, advocates registration.1,2 Well-conducted systematic reviews are accepted as the best-quality evidence to inform policy and practice, and the dramatic upward trend in the number of systematic reviews published annually (figure) is set to continue.3 However, there is currently no single facility for identifying this type of research in advance of the appearance of the results of the review. In both the prevention and revelation of potential bias, registration should improve quality and increase confidence that policy or practice informed by the findings of systematic reviews are indeed drawing on best-quality evidence.
Lack of transparency in clinical trial conduct, publication bias and selective reporting bias are still important problems in medical research. Through clinical trials registration, it should be ...possible to take steps towards resolving some of these problems. However, previous evaluations of registered records of clinical trials have shown that registered information is often incomplete and non-meaningful. If these studies are accurate, this negates the possible benefits of registration of clinical trials.
A 5% sample of records of clinical trials that were registered between 17 June 2008 and 17 June 2009 was taken from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) database and assessed for the presence of contact information, the presence of intervention specifics in drug trials and the quality of primary and secondary outcome reporting. 731 records were included. More than half of the records were registered after recruitment of the first participant. The name of a contact person was available in 94.4% of records from non-industry funded trials and 53.7% of records from industry funded trials. Either an email address or a phone number was present in 76.5% of non-industry funded trial records and in 56.5% of industry funded trial records. Although a drug name or company serial number was almost always provided, other drug intervention specifics were often omitted from registration. Of 3643 reported outcomes, 34.9% were specific measures with a meaningful time frame.
Clinical trials registration has the potential to contribute substantially to improving clinical trial transparency and reducing publication bias and selective reporting. These potential benefits are currently undermined by deficiencies in the provision of information in key areas of registered records.
The benefits of clinical trials registration include improved transparency on clinical trials for healthcare workers and patients, increased accountability of trialists, the potential to address ...publication bias and selective reporting, and possibilities for research collaboration and prioritization. However, poor quality of information in registered records of trials has been found to undermine these benefits in the past. Trialists' increasing experience with trial registration and recent developments in registration systems may have positively affected data quality. This study was conducted to investigate whether the quality of registration has improved.
We repeated a study from 2009, using the same methods and the same research team. A random sample of 400 records of clinical trials that were registered between 01/01/2012 and 01/01/2013 was taken from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and assessed for the quality of information on 1) contact details, 2) interventions and 3) primary outcomes. Results were compared to the equivalent assessments from our previous study.
There was a small and not statistically significant increase from 81.0% to 85.5% in the percentage of records that provided a name of a contact person. There was a significant increase from 68.7% to 74.9% in the number of records that provided either an email address or a telephone number. There was a significant increase from 44.2% to 51.9% in the number of intervention arms that were complete in registering intervention specifics. There was a significant increase from 38.2% to 57.6% in the number of primary outcomes that were specific measures with a meaningful timeframe. Approximately half of all trials continued to be retrospectively registered.
There have been small but significant improvements in the quality of registration since 2009. Important problems with quality remain and continue to constitute an impediment to the meaningful utilization of registered trial information.
In 2017, the Australian Government funded the update of the National Physical Activity Recommendations for Children 0-5 years, with the intention that they be an integration of movement behaviours ...across the 24-h period. The benefit for Australia was that it could leverage research in Canada in the development of their 24-h guidelines for the early years. Concurrently, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group published a model to produce guidelines based on adoption, adaption and/or de novo development using the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework. Referred to as the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, it allows guideline developers to follow a structured and transparent process in a more efficient manner, potentially avoiding the need to unnecessarily repeat costly tasks such as conducting systematic reviews. The purpose of this paper is to outline the process and outcomes for adapting the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years to develop the Australian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years guided by the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT framework.
The development process was guided by the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach. A Leadership Group and Consensus Panel were formed and existing credible guidelines identified. The draft Canadian 24-h integrated movement guidelines for the early years best met the criteria established by the Panel. These were evaluated based on the evidence in the GRADE tables, summaries of findings tables and draft recommendations from the Canadian Draft Guidelines. Updates to each of the Canadian systematic reviews were conducted and the Consensus Panel reviewed the evidence for each behaviour separately and made a decision to adopt or adapt the Canadian recommendations for each behaviour or create de novo recommendations. An online survey was then conducted (n = 302) along with five focus groups (n = 30) and five key informant interviews (n = 5) to obtain feedback from stakeholders on the draft guidelines.
Based on the evidence from the Canadian systematic reviews and the updated systematic reviews in Australia, the Consensus Panel agreed to adopt the Canadian recommendations and, apart from some minor changes to the wording of good practice statements, keep the wording of the guidelines, preamble and title of the Canadian Guidelines. The Australian Guidelines provide evidence-informed recommendations for a healthy day (24-h), integrating physical activity, sedentary behaviour (including limits to screen time), and sleep for infants (<1 year), toddlers (1-2 years) and preschoolers (3-5 years).
To our knowledge, this is only the second time the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach has been used. Following this approach, the judgments of the Australian Consensus Panel did not differ sufficiently to change the directions and strength of the recommendations and as such, the Canadian recommendations were adopted with very minor alterations. This allowed the Guidelines to be developed much faster and at lower cost. As such, we would recommend the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, especially if a credible set of guidelines, with all supporting materials and developed using a transparent process, is available. Other countries may consider using this approach when developing and/or revising national movement guidelines.
Background
The addition of radiotherapy (RT) following breast conserving surgery (BCS) was first shown to reduce the risk of ipsilateral recurrence in the treatment of invasive breast cancer. Ductal ...carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a pre‐invasive lesion. Recurrence of ipsilateral disease following BCS can be either DCIS or invasive breast cancer. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that RT can reduce the risk of recurrence, but assessment of potential long‐term complications from addition of RT following BSC for DCIS has not been reported for women participating in RCTs.
Objectives
To summarise the data from RCTs testing the addition of RT to BCS for treatment of DCIS to determine the balance between the benefits and harms.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (2 June 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE (2 June 2011), EMBASE (2 June 2011) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; 2 June 2011). Reference lists of articles and handsearching of ASCO (2007), ESMO (2002 to 2007), and St Gallen (2005 to 2007) conferences were performed.
Selection criteria
RCTs of breast conserving surgery with and without radiotherapy in women at first diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ (no invasive disease present).
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently assessed each potentially eligible trial for inclusion and its quality. Two authors also independently extracted data from published Kaplan‐Meier analysis (survival curves) and reported summary statistics. Data were extracted and pooled for four trials. Data for planned subgroups were extracted and pooled for analysis.There were insufficient data to pool for long‐term toxicity from radiotherapy.
Main results
Four RCTs involving 3925 women were identified and included in this review. All were high quality with minimal risk of bias. Three trials compared the addition of RT to BCS. One trial was a two by two factorial design comparing the use of RT and tamoxifen, each separately or together, in which participants were randomised in at least one arm. Analysis confirmed a statistically significant benefit from the addition of radiotherapy on all ipsilateral breast events (hazards ratio (HR) 0.49; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.58, P < 0.00001), ipsilateral invasive recurrence (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76, p=0.001) and ipsilateral DCIS recurrence (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.95, P = 0.03). All the subgroups analysed benefited from addition of radiotherapy. No significant long‐term toxicity from radiotherapy was found. No information about short‐term toxicity from radiotherapy or quality of life data were reported.
Authors' conclusions
This review confirms the benefit of adding radiotherapy to breast conserving surgery for the treatment of all women diagnosed with DCIS. No long‐term toxicity from use of radiotherapy was identified.
Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are increasingly used to develop environmental hazard assessments and public health guidelines. These research areas typically ...rely on evidence from human observational studies of exposures, yet there are currently no universally accepted standards for assessing risk of bias in such studies. The risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool has been developed by building upon tools for risk of bias assessment of randomised trials, diagnostic test accuracy studies and observational studies of interventions. This paper reports our experience with the application of the ROBINS-E tool.
We applied ROBINS-E to 74 exposure studies (60 cohort studies, 14 case-control studies) in 3 areas: environmental risk, dietary exposure and drug harm. All investigators provided written feedback, and we documented verbal discussion of the tool. We inductively and iteratively classified the feedback into 7 themes based on commonalities and differences until all the feedback was accounted for in the themes. We present a description of each theme.
We identified practical concerns with the premise that ROBINS-E is a structured comparison of the observational study being rated to the 'ideal' randomised controlled trial. ROBINS-E assesses 7 domains of bias, but relevant questions related to some critical sources of bias, such as exposure and funding source, are not assessed. ROBINS-E fails to discriminate between studies with a single risk of bias or multiple risks of bias. ROBINS-E is severely limited at determining whether confounders will bias study outcomes. The construct of co-exposures was difficult to distinguish from confounders. Applying ROBINS-E was time-consuming and confusing.
Our experience suggests that the ROBINS-E tool does not meet the need for an international standard for evaluating human observational studies for questions of harm relevant to public and environmental health. We propose that a simpler tool, based on empirical evidence of bias, would provide accurate measures of risk of bias and is more likely to meet the needs of the environmental and public health community.
In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, time-to-event outcomes are most appropriately analysed using hazard ratios (HRs). In the absence of individual patient data (IPD), methods are available to ...obtain HRs and/or associated statistics by carefully manipulating published or other summary data. Awareness and adoption of these methods is somewhat limited, perhaps because they are published in the statistical literature using statistical notation.
This paper aims to 'translate' the methods for estimating a HR and associated statistics from published time-to-event-analyses into less statistical and more practical guidance and provide a corresponding, easy-to-use calculations spreadsheet, to facilitate the computational aspects.
A wider audience should be able to understand published time-to-event data in individual trial reports and use it more appropriately in meta-analysis. When faced with particular circumstances, readers can refer to the relevant sections of the paper. The spreadsheet can be used to assist them in carrying out the calculations.
The methods cannot circumvent the potential biases associated with relying on published data for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. However, this practical guide should improve the quality of the analysis and subsequent interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include time-to-event outcomes.
There is high demand in environmental health for adoption of a structured process that evaluates and integrates evidence while making decisions and recommendations transparent. The Grading of ...Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework holds promise to address this demand. For over a decade, GRADE has been applied successfully to areas of clinical medicine, public health, and health policy, but experience with GRADE in environmental and occupational health is just beginning. Environmental and occupational health questions focus on understanding whether an exposure is a potential health hazard or risk, assessing the exposure to understand the extent and magnitude of risk, and exploring interventions to mitigate exposure or risk. Although GRADE offers many advantages, including its flexibility and methodological rigor, there are features of the different sources of evidence used in environmental and occupational health that will require further consideration to assess the need for method refinement. An issue that requires particular attention is the evaluation and integration of evidence from human, animal, in vitro, and in silico (computer modeling) studies when determining whether an environmental factor represents a potential health hazard or risk. Assessment of the hazard of exposures can produce analyses for use in the GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to inform risk-management decisions about removing harmful exposures or mitigating risks. The EtD framework allows for grading the strength of the recommendations based on judgments of the certainty in the evidence (also known as quality of the evidence), as well as other factors that inform recommendations such as social values and preferences, resource implications, and benefits. GRADE represents an untapped opportunity for environmental and occupational health to make evidence-based recommendations in a systematic and transparent manner. The objectives of this article are to provide an overview of GRADE, discuss GRADE's applicability to environmental health, and identify priority areas for method assessment and development.
•A structured framework is needed for decision-making in environmental health.•GRADE has been applied in many disciplines and holds great promise for the field.•Methods development and assessment is needed to address environmental health data.•Methods assessment priorities are evaluation and integration of diverse evidence streams.•GRADE evidence-to-decision framework informs risk and other management decisions.
PDF
