Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, 686 Bay Street, Room 11.9712, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 0A4, Canada.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 25;20(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01019-6.
Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.
RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable.
Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.
Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.
循证医疗是基于随机临床试验(RCT)的结果及其荟萃分析的综合结果。当试验出版物中未明确描述所测量的试验结果时,知识综合、翻译和决策可能会受到阻碍。虽然已经描述了青少年重度抑郁症(MDD)RCT 中测量结果的异质性,但结果报告的全面性尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估评估青少年 MDD 治疗方法的 RCT 中主要结局的报告情况。
本研究纳入了 2008 年至 2017 年间发表的、针对 MDD 青少年患者的单一主要结局的 RCT 评估治疗干预措施的 RCT。使用包含 58 项报告项目的综合清单对结局报告评估进行了独立的重复性评估。根据适用情况,对每项 RCT 出版物中提供的主要结局信息,对清单中的每项进行“全面报告”、“部分报告”或“未报告”评分。
在确定的 42 篇文章中,有 18 篇文章被认为有明显的单一主要结局,并被纳入结局报告评估。大多数试验(72%)没有完全报告 58 项清单中的一半以上项目。描述结局评估者的盲法、结局评估的时间和频率以及结局分析的项目在超过 70%的试验中得到了全面报告。较少报告的项目包括结局测量工具的属性(范围为 6%至 17%)、结局评估时间和频率的合理性(6%)以及用于临床显著差异的标准的合理性(17%)。报告的整体全面性似乎随时间保持稳定。
已发表的青少年 MDD RCT 存在报告不规范的情况,经常遗漏主要结局的关键细节。这些遗漏可能会影响 RCT 的可解释性、可重复性和综合分析,从而影响该领域的临床指南和决策。需要就青少年 MDD RCT 中结局报告的最低标准达成共识。