DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20161414

Pre-enrolment screening reporting in randomized controlled trials from five pharmacology journals

Sachin M. Satpute, Manthan N. Mehta, Kiran Deshmukh, Kumardeep B. Paul

Abstract


Background:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when appropriately conducted and reported represent the gold standard in evidence based medicine. Various guidelines including the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT 2010) recommend the reporting of the number of participants screened for potential recruitment. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of pre-enrolment screening figure in randomized controlled trials from five pharmacology journals.

Methods:RCTs from the five pharmacology journals with descending order of impact factor i.e. The journal of clinical pharmacology (JCP), British journal of clinical pharmacology (BJCP), European journal of clinical pharmacology (EJCP), Journal of pharmacology and pharmacotherapeutics (JPP) and Indian journal of pharmacology (IJP) published between January 2013 to December 2014 were reviewed using standardized criteria.

Results:37 out of 174 (21.27%) did not report the number of participants screened prior to recruitment. From the 137 RCTs that reported this screening figure, 95,494 (46.30%, range: 41-60.60%) of the screened participants (2, 06,243) were subsequently enrolled. About 52.49% of those screened and not enrolled, did not meet inclusion criteria or met exclusion criteria and about 11.89% declined to participate in an RCT.  

Conclusions: Thus, there was about 80% reporting of pre-enrolment screening figure in RCTs from five pharmacology journals which need further improvement. The practice of documenting pre-enrolment screening figure and associated exclusion reasons will help to plan appropriate recruitment strategies during protocol development.


Keywords


Clinical trials, CONSORT, Randomized clinical trials, Recruitment, Screening

Full Text:

PDF

References


Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. British Med J. 2001;323:42-6.

Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomized trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365:1159-62.

Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? British Med J. 2008;336:1472-4.

Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. Public Lib Sci. 2008;3:3081.

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials. Obs Gyn J. 1994;272:125-8.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendation for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191-4.

Nojomi M, Ramezani M, GhafariAnvar A. Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials published in Iranian journals: application of the new version of consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Arch Iran Med. 2013;16(1):20-2.

Schulz, Kenneth F. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet. 1996;348(9027):596-8.

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):37.

Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, Gaboury I. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials? A systematic review. The Medical Journal of Australia. 2006;185:263-7.

Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Godlee F, et al. Clinical trial registration - Looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2734-6.

Moja LP, Moschetti I, Nurbhai M, Compagnoni A, Liberati A, Grimshaw JM, et al. Compliance of clinical trial registries with the world health organization minimum data set: A survey. Trials. 2009;10:56.

Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200-7.

The World Bank. Country Classifications and Lending Groups; 2013. Available at http:// www.data.worldbank.org/about/countryclassifications / country – and – lending –groups # Upper _middle _ income. Accessed on 15 June 2015.

Tiffany M, Brown H, Paterson DL. Reporting of pre-enrolment screening with randomized clinical trials: a small item that could impact a big difference. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2015;6:139-3.

McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomized clinical trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials. 2006;7:9.