Randomized controlled trials and neuro-oncology: should alternative designs be considered?
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
Deficiencies in design and reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) hinders interpretability and critical appraisal. The reporting quality of recent RCTs in neuro-oncology was analyzed to assess adequacy of design and reporting. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify non-surgical RCTs (years 2005-2014, inclusive). The CONSORT and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of design/reporting. Studies published in 2005-2010 were compared as a cohort against studies published in 2011-2014, in terms of general characteristics and reporting quality. A PRECIS-based scale was used to designate studies on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. Spearman's test was used to assess correlations. Regression analysis was used to assess associations. Overall 68 RCTs were identified. Studies were often chemotherapy-based (n = 41 studies) focusing upon high grade gliomas (46 %) and metastases (41 %) as the top pathologies. Multi-center trials (71 %) were frequent. The overall median CONSORT and Jadad scores were 34.5 (maximum 44) and 2 (maximum 5), respectively; these scores were similar in radiation and chemotherapy-based trials. Major areas of deficiency pertained to allocation concealment, implementation of methods, and blinding whereby less than 20 % of articles fulfilled all criteria. Description of intervention, random sequence generation, and the details regarding recruitment were also deficient; less than 50 % of studies fulfilled all criteria. Description of sample size calculations and blinding improved in later published cohorts. Journal impact factor was significantly associated with higher quality (p = 0.04). Large academic consortia, multi-center designs, ITT analysis, collaboration with biostatisticians, larger sample sizes, and studies with pragmatic objectives were more likely to achieve positive primary outcomes on univariate analysis; none of these variables were significant on multivariate analysis. Deficiencies in the quality of design/reporting of RCTs in neuro-oncology persist. Quality improvement is necessary. Consideration of alternative strategies should be considered.
