AI Article Synopsis
- Clinical trial reports often focus more on the benefits of new cancer therapies than on the associated harms, which can mislead readers about their overall risk-to-benefit balance.
- A study analyzed phase III randomized controlled trials for breast and colorectal cancer and found significant gaps in adverse event reporting, with many trials not adequately detailing harms in their abstracts.
- The results indicate a need for better compliance with reporting guidelines to ensure that both the benefits and risks of new treatments are clearly communicated to healthcare providers and patients.
Article Abstract
Background: Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.
Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results: Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.
Conclusions: Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.
Systematic Review Registration Number: CRD42019140673.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7367648 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3095 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!