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; I2=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I2=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I2=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I2=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.

Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study / Bührer, J.; Del Giovane, C.; Gencer, B.; Adam, L.; Lyko, C.; Feller, M.; Da Costa, B. R.; Aujesky, D.; Bauer, D. C.; Rodondi, N.; Moutzouri, E.. - In: MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDING. - ISSN 2542-4548. - 7:4(2023), pp. 231-240. [10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.04.010]

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

Del Giovane C.;
2023

Abstract

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; I2=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I2=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I2=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I2=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.
2023
7
4
231
240
Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study / Bührer, J.; Del Giovane, C.; Gencer, B.; Adam, L.; Lyko, C.; Feller, M.; Da Costa, B. R.; Aujesky, D.; Bauer, D. C.; Rodondi, N.; Moutzouri, E.. - In: MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDING. - ISSN 2542-4548. - 7:4(2023), pp. 231-240. [10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.04.010]
Bührer, J.; Del Giovane, C.; Gencer, B.; Adam, L.; Lyko, C.; Feller, M.; Da Costa, B. R.; Aujesky, D.; Bauer, D. C.; Rodondi, N.; Moutzouri, E....espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
main.pdf

Open access

Tipologia: VOR - Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Licenza: [IR] creative-commons
Dimensione 559.93 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
559.93 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1385313
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact