Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials

Département d'Epidémiologie, Biostatistique, et Recherche Clinique, Groupe Hospitalier Bichat-Claude Bernard (AP-HP), Université Denis Diderot, INSERM U738, Paris, France.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 17.33). 10/2009; 169(19):1756-61. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.306
Source: PubMed


Reports of clinical trials usually emphasize efficacy results, especially when results are statistically significant. Poor safety reporting can lead to misinterpretation and inadequate conclusions about the interventions assessed. Our aim was to describe the reporting of harm-related results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
We searched the MEDLINE database for reports of RCTs published from January 1, 2006, through January 1, 2007, in 6 general medical journals with a high impact factor. Data were extracted by use of a standardized form to appraise the presentation of safety results in text and tables.
Adverse events were mentioned in 88.7% of the 133 reports. No information on severe adverse events and withdrawal of patients owing to an adverse event was given in 27.1% and 47.4% of articles, respectively. Restrictions in the reporting of harm-related data were noted in 43 articles (32.3%) with a description of the most common adverse events only (n = 17), severe adverse events only (n = 16), statistically significant events only (n = 5), and a combination of restrictions (n = 5). The population considered for safety analysis was clearly reported in 65.6% of articles.
Our review reveals important heterogeneity and variability in the reporting of harm-related results in publications of RCTs.

Download full-text


Available from: Philippe Ravaud,
  • Source
    • "The identification of adverse events is also done inconsistently by conventional medicine [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. The majority of FDA warnings are issued based on spontaneous case reports [28]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Complementary and alternative CAM) medicine use among children is extremely popular.Users consider CAM to be more ‘natural’, more aligned with personal health values, and associated with fewer side effects. However, few pediatric studies have investigated adverse events (AEs) associated with CAM therapies. The Objective of this review was to identify serious AEs associated with use of pediatric CAM in partnership with the Canadian Pediatric Surveillance Program. Methods Active surveillance of a national representative sample of Canadian pediatricians. Participants were asked to report if they had seen any suspected serious AEs associated with CAM in the past month. Harms could be direct (associated with the CAM therapy itself) or indirect (delay in diagnosis or treatment of a serious medical condition). Details of reported AEs were adjudicated by two independent experts to assess causality. Results During the study period (January 01 2009 to December 31 2010), Canadian pediatricians reported 12 unique cases of suspected serious adverse events associated with CAM. Of these, detailed reports were provided in nine cases, of which eight were adjudicated as serious. Six of the eight cases were considered ‘probably’ and two ‘possibly’ caused by CAM interventions. Serious pediatric AEs identified included anaphylaxis, hallucinations, muscle weakness with elevated creatine kinase, hypervitaminosis D with possible chronic nephrocalcinosis as a consequence, and short term paralysis. Conclusion Few serious AEs were identified in this study, despite widespread use of paediatric CAM. Active surveillance is challenged by under-reporting and can be enhanced by improved communication at each patient encounter.
    European Journal of Integrative Medicine 08/2014; 6(4):467-472. DOI:10.1016/j.eujim.2014.05.001 · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statins have demonstrated their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) but much less information has been reported on their unintended effects [1-6]. In RCTs not all harmful effects can be easily anticipated, but even if measured, their reporting is inadequate [7]. Under-reporting of unintended effects may affect the interpretation of the net clinical benefit, particularly among people at low cardiovascular risk. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efficacy of statins has been extensively studied, with much less information reported on their unintended effects. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on unintended effects is often insufficient to support hypotheses generated from observational studies. We aimed to systematically assess unintended effects of statins from observational studies in general populations with comparison of the findings where possible with those derived from randomized trials. Medline (1998 to January 2012, week 3) and Embase (1998 to 2012, week 6) were searched using the standard BMJ Cohort studies filter. The search was supplemented with reference lists of all identified studies and contact with experts in the field. We included prospective studies with a sample size larger than 1,000 participants, case control (of any size) and routine health service linkage studies of over at least one year duration. Studies in subgroups of patients or follow-up of patient case series were excluded, as well as hospital-based cohort studies. Ninety studies were identified, reporting on 48 different unintended effects. Statins were associated with lower risks of dementia and cognitive impairment, venous thrombo-embolism, fractures and pneumonia, but these findings were attenuated in analyses restricted to higher quality studies (respectively: OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.87); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03); OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.05); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.02)); and marked heterogeneity of effects across studies remained. Statin use was not related to any increased risk of depression, common eye diseases, renal disorders or arthritis. There was evidence of an increased risk of myopathy, raised liver enzymes and diabetes (respectively: OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.50 to 4.61); OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.47 to 1.62); OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.73)). Our systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that high quality observational data can provide relevant evidence on unintended effects of statins to add to the evidence from RCTs. The absolute excess risk of the observed harmful unintended effects of statins is very small compared to the beneficial effects of statins on major cardiovascular events.
    BMC Medicine 03/2014; 12(1):51. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-12-51 · 7.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The implication of reporting adverse effects is that it easily enables the reader to understand information about the risks and benefits of interventions to make rational and balanced decisions. A review of trials published in six general medical journals in 2006 to 2007 found that, although 89% of 133 reports mentioned adverse events, no information on severe adverse events and withdrawal of patients due to an adverse event was given in 27% and 48% of articles, respectively [57]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due to language limitations, little is known about the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD) with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine (CJITWM). In this study, we utilized the CONSORT 2010 statement to understand the reporting quality of RCTs on CHD with TCM from the CJITWM. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic database was searched for CJITWM RCTs on the treatment of CHD with TCM, published between Janurary 1, 2006 and December 31, 2011. We excluded articles reported as "animal studies," "topic review," "diagnostic test," "editorials," or "others." The CONSORT checklist was applied to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible articles by two independent authors after extensive discussion. Each item was graded as either "yes" or "no" depending on whether the authors had reported it or not. We identified 21 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. The percentage of 11 of the 37 items was 4.8∼95.2%, 14 of the 37 items were reported in all included articles, while 12 items were not mentioned at all. The average reporting percentage for the "title and abstract" section was 52.4%, for the "introduction" section 100.0%, for the "methods" section 45.4%, for the "results" section 57.1%, for the "discussion" section 79.4%, and for the "other information" section 17.5%. In general, the reviewed RCTs were not consistent with the CONSORT 2010 statement. Authors should adhere to the CONSORT statement in reporting RCTs; editorial departments may consider the CONSORT statement as a guideline and should instruct authors to write manuscripts, and reviewers to judge them according to CONSORT statutes.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(1):e86360. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0086360 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more