An intervention with clinical application must be effective and safe, therefore, when evaluating interventions, the benefit-harm ratio should be considered, and only those interventions with more benefits than harms have application value. To evaluate the benefits and harms of an intervention evidence of both benefits and harms should be reported in clinical trials. To promote better reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials, the CONSORT group had added an entry on harms in the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement, and then in 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated, the reporting of harms is still inadequate. The CONSORT group has updated《Better reporting of harms in randomized trial: an extension of the CCONSORT statement.》, published《CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials》. This article presents and explains the Harms 2022, with the aim of helping researchers better understand and use the statement, with a view to improving the reporting quality of harms in clinical trials.
The complete, transparent, and standardized reporting of the outcome of a clinical trial is a key factor in ensuring the practicality, reproducibility, and transparency of the trial, and reducing bias in selective reporting. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement provides normative guidelines for reporting clinical trials. In December 2022, JAMA released the guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial reports (CONSORT-Outcomes) 2022 extension, aiming to explain the entries related to trial outcomes, sample size, statistical methods, and auxiliary analysis in the CONSORT 2010 statement, to further improve the standards for outcome reporting in clinical trial reports. This article combines research examples to interpret the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension, in order to provide normative references for domestic scholars to report clinical research results.
Objective To assess the reporting quality of noninferiority and equivalence randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). Methods The noninferiority and equivalence RCTs related to TCM were searched, and the quality of the included RCTs was identified in accordance with the extended version of CONSORT statement which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs. Results A total of 13 noninferiority and equivalence RCTs were included. Except for the common questions of RCTs in reporting quality, some contents related to noninferiority and equivalence trials in reporting were not enough: a) The title of RCTs did not reflect the most important content of the literature; b) The introduction of background was quite simple. The rationale about noninferiority and equivalence trials, and the effectiveness of positive control were not clearly defined; c) All literatures did not indicate whether the subjects, interventions and outcomes in the noninferiority and equivalence trials were identical or similar to those in previous trials of defining the effectiveness of control treatment; d) Most literatures did not define the critical value of noninferiority and equivalence, and did not estimate the sample size; e) Only half of literature described the statistical methods of noninferiority test and equivalence test; and f) Some literature had mistakes in noninferiority and equivalence conclusion. Conclusion The researchers still need deeper understanding of the theoretical basis of noninferiority and equivalence trials. The reference to the extended version of CONSORT statement, which refers to the reporting standard of noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, is helpful for researchers to identify the key points of the design, performance and reporting of the noninferiority and equivalence RCTs, to lay stress on the related contents of noninferiority and equivalence trial reporting, and to radically improve the reporting quality of such clinical trials.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality and influencing factors of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer. Methods RCTs of lung cancer with PRO as either primary or secondary endpoints were searched from PubMed, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases between January 1, 2010 and April 20, 2024. Reporting quality of included RCTs were assessed based on the CONSORT-PRO extension. Descriptive statistics and bivariate regression analysis were used to describe the reporting quality and analyze the factors influencing the reporting quality. Results A total of 740 articles were retrieved. After screening, 53 eligible RCTs of lung cancer with 22 780 patients were included. The patients were mainly with non-small cell lung cancer (84.91%), with the median sample size of the included studies was 364.0 (160.5, 599.5) patients. The primary PRO tool used was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60.38%). There were 52 (98.11%) studies whose PRO measured the domain of "symptom management of cough, dyspnea, fatigue, pain, etc.", and 45 (84.91%) studies measured "health-related quality of life". Multicenter studies accounted for 84.91%, and randomized non-blind trials accounted for 62.26%. PRO was used as the primary endpoint in 33.96% of the studies and as secondary endpoints in 66.04%. The reliability and validity of the PRO tools were explicitly mentioned in 11.32% and 7.55% of the studies, respectively. The average completeness of reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines was 60.00%, ranging from 25.00% to 93.00%. The main factors affecting the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting included sample size and publication year. For every increment in sample size, the completeness of reporting increased by 27.5% (SE=0.00, t=2.040, P=0.046). Additionally, studies published after 2018 had a 67.2% higher completeness of reporting compared to those published in or before 2018 (SE=17.8, t=–3.273, P=0.006). Conclusion The study reveals that the overall reporting quality of PRO in lung cancer RCTs is poor. Particularly, the reporting of PRO measures reliability and validity, PRO assumptions, applicability, and handling of missing data need further improvement. Future research should emphasize comprehensive adherence to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in seven military medical journals. Methods Seven journals in 2007, including Medical Journal of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Journal of South Medical University, Journal of Second Military Medical University, Journal of Third Military Medical University, Journal of Fourth Military Medical University, Bulletin of the Academy of Military of Medical Sciences and Academic Journal of PLA Postgraduate Medical School, were handsearched. We identified RCTs labeled “random” and assessed the quality of these reports using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement. Results We identified 99 RCTs, but found an incorrect randomized method was used in 6 RCTs. According to the items in the CONSORT statement in 93 RCTs, 62 (66.7%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. Sixteen (17.2%) RCTs mentioned the method of random sequence generation, with 5 (5.4%) using a computer allocation. Only 1 RCT had adequate allocation concealment. Only 9 (9.7%) RCTs used blinding, with 2 mentioning blinding, 1 using single blinding and 6 described as double-blind (2 were correct). Zero (0%) reported the sample size calculation and 1 RCT reported the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Conclusion The reporting quality of RCTs in seven journals is poor. The CONSORT statement should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs.
In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected data (e.g., electronic health records, administrative databases, and health registries) has increased. Such trials can ease the challenges of conducting research and save cost and time. Accordingly, to standardize such trials and increase the transparency and completeness of research reports, an international panel of experts developed the CONSORT-ROUTINE (2021) reporting guideline. The reporting guideline was published in 2021 in the BMJ. To help understand and formally apply the reporting guideline and improve the overall quality of this type of study, the present paper introduced and interpreted the development process and reporting checklist of the CONSORT-ROUTINE.
High-quality randomized controlled trials can balance between-group confounding factors and are an important source of comprehensive information on benefits and harms. The CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) working group released the CONSORT Harms 2022 statement to further improve the harm reporting quality in randomized controlled trials. Traditional Chinese medicine formulas have unique characteristics such as compatibility taboos and using toxic herbs. The harms of traditional Chinese medicine formulas need to be reported in a standard. This study suggests that researchers should pay attention to enhancing the professional competence of research teams, developing suitable standards for reporting the harm of traditional Chinese medicine formulas in randomized controlled trials, and incorporating relevant guidelines into journal publication requirements. These efforts are essential for laying the necessary groundwork for the global dissemination and promotion of traditional Chinese medicine.
