Out of sight but not out of mind: How to search for unpublished clinical trial evidence
Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. BMJ (online)
(Impact Factor: 17.45).
01/2011; 344(7838):d8013. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d8013
Available from: Amelie Yavchitz
- "We searched for reports of randomized trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MED- LINE, and EMBASE (search equations in Additional file 1: Appendix 2) with no restriction on language, status, or year of publication, and searched other resources  : 1) previous systematic reviews (see below); 2) reference lists of all selected trials; 3) conference abstracts (from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Meeting , European Society of Medical Oncology Congress, and World Lung Cancer Conference); 4) non-industry trial registries and results databases (ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT); 5) industry trial registries and results databases ; and 6) regulatory agency online databases (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency); details in Additional file 1: Appendix 3. We contacted trialists to request complete results for all trials identified as " completed " on ClinicalTrials.gov "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition, and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments. We aimed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic reviews to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis over time. Methods: We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of randomized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic reviews and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other resources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2, 2015. We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic reviews to the randomized evidence available for inclusion each year. We constructed cumulative networks of randomized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials, patients, treatments, and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic reviews on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015. Results: We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered. Conclusions: We illustrate how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments. This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.
Available from: Lorie A. Kloda
- "To identify unpublished or ongoing trials, we will use methods that include reviewing trial registries and results databases (for example, ClinicalTrials.gov), pharmaceutical industry trial registries and results databases, regulatory agency online databases, regulatory agency submissions, litigation documents, and conferences abstracts, as well as contacting trialists and sponsors for unpublished or ongoing trials . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Depression is an important cause of disability among children and adolescents. Depression screening is one possible method for managing depression, and screening programs have been initiated in some school and medical settings. However, in 2005, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the United Kingdom National Institute of Clinical Excellence did not recommend depression screening among children and adolescents. By contrast, in 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all adolescents, but not younger children, be screened for depression in medical settings with integrated depression management services, although no trials of screening were identified. The objectives of this systematic review are to evaluate in children and adolescents the accuracy of depression screening tools; depression treatment efficacy; whether depression screening improves depression outcomes; and potential harms related to depression interventions and screening.
Data sources will include the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, LILACS and Web of Science, supplemented by reference harvesting of eligible articles, relevant systematic reviews, relevant guidelines and recommendations, and selected journals, and by searches for unpublished studies. Eligible studies will report data for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Eligible diagnostic accuracy studies must compare a depression screening tool to a validated diagnostic interview for major depressive disorder and report diagnostic accuracy data. Eligible treatment studies must be randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, or other depression treatments commonly available for children and adolescents in pediatric, primary-care, and family medicine settings. Eligible screening studies must be randomized controlled trials that compare depression outcomes between children or adolescents who underwent depression screening versus those who did not. Studies of harms will include randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluate harms from depression screening or treatment. Two investigators will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full article review. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. Two investigators will independently extract the data, with discrepancies resolved via consensus.
The proposed systematic review will determine whether there is sufficient evidence of benefits in excess of harms and costs to support screening for depression in childhood and adolescence.
Available from: thejns.org
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Microvascular decompression (MVD) offers an effective and durable treatment for patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Because the disorder has a tendency to occur in older persons, the risks of surgical treatment in the elderly have been a topic of recent interest. To date, evidence derived from several small retrospective and a single prospective case series has suggested that age does not increase the complication rate associated with surgery. Using a large national database, the authors aimed to study the impact of age on in-hospital complications following MVD for TN.
Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the 10-year period from 1999 to 2008, the authors selected all patients who underwent MVD for TN. The primary outcome of interest was the in-hospital mortality rate. Secondary outcomes of interest were cardiac, pulmonary, thromboembolic, cerebrovascular, and wound complications as well as the duration of hospital stay, total hospital charges, and discharge location. An elderly cohort of patients was first defined as those 65 years of age and older and then redefined as those 75 years and older.
A total of 3273 patients who underwent MVD for TN were identified, having a median age of 57 years. Within this sample, 31.5% were 65 years and older and 10.7% were 75 years and older. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0.68% for patients 65 years or older (p = 0.0087) and 1.16% for those 75 years or older (p = 0.0026). In patients younger than 65 years, the in-hospital mortality rate was 0.13% (3 deaths among 2241 patients). As analyzed using the chi-square test (for both 65 and 75 years as the age cutoff) and the Pearson rank correlation coefficient, the risk of cardiac, pulmonary, thromboembolic, and cerebrovascular complications was higher in older patients (that is, those 65 and older and those 75 and older), but the risks of wound complications and CNS infection were not. The risk of any in-hospital complication occurring in a patient 65 years and older was 7.36% (p < 0.0001) and 10.0% in those 75 years and older (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the total hospital charges associated with age. The duration of the hospital stay was longer in older patients, and the likelihood of discharge home was lower in older patients.
Microvascular decompression for TN in the elderly population remains a reasonable surgical option. However, based on data from a large national database, authors of the present study suggest that complications do tend to gradually increase in tandem with an advanced age. While age does not act as a risk factor in isolation, it may serve as a convenient surrogate for complication rates. The authors hope that this information can be of use in guiding older patients through decisions for the surgical treatment of TN.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.