Trial participants are frequently excluded based on their symptoms rather than their condition: A systematic review of Cochrane reviews and their component trials
Stocking, K.; Watson, A.; Wilkinson, J.; Kirkham, J. J.; Vail, A.
Show abstract
ObjectivesIdentify strategies used in the design of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and their associated Cochrane reviews where patients with the same gynaecological condition present with different symptoms. Study Design and SettingWe searched the Cochrane library (February 2022) for reviews in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Reviews were included if the intervention was intended to treat all condition-specific symptoms. We restricted to trials published since 2012 to consider current approaches. For each trial we recorded the number of potentially eligible participants excluded as a direct result of the chosen strategy. For each review we recorded the numbers of RCTs and participants excluded unnecessarily. ResultsThere were 89 distinct PCOS trials in 13 reviews, and 13 Endometriosis trials in 11 reviews. Most trials restricted their eligibility to participants with specific symptoms (55% PCOS, 46% endometriosis). The second most common strategy was to measure and analyse clinical outcomes that were not relevant to all participants (38% PCOS, 31% endometriosis). Reviews excluded 27% of trials based just on outcome data. ConclusionsCurrent gynaecological research is inefficient. Most trials either exclude patients who could benefit from treatment or measure outcomes not relevant to all participants. RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42022334776) What is new?O_ST_ABSKey findingsC_ST_ABSO_LIOver a quarter of Cochrane reviews included in this review excluded trials based on the outcomes reported. C_LIO_LITypically, recent randomised controlled trials in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and Endometriosis trials either exclude patients who could potentially benefit from the treatment given, or measure outcomes of no relevance to some participants. C_LI What this adds to what is known?O_LIStrategies developed that are employed in the design and measurement of outcomes in gynaecological trials. C_LIO_LIThere are multiple sources of waste in the current gynaecological research landscape. The population of patients available is under-utilised by excluding patients based on the outcomes measured, or alternatively, researchers are measuring outcomes in patients who do not experience the associated symptom(s). C_LI What is the implication and what should change now?O_LIGynaecological patients experience heterogeneity in their symptoms and therefore it is crucial to employ appropriate outcome measures in order to reduce research waste. Cochrane Reviews should include all trials which report outcomes that are relevant to the population of interest if the intervention under investigation is deemed to plausibly treat the associated symptom(s). C_LI
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Measurement of changes to the menstrual cycle: A transdisciplinary systematic review evaluating measure quality and utility for clinical trials 95%
- Menopause education of healthcare professionals: A scoping review protocol 94%
- COVID-19 and pregnancy: An umbrella review of clinical presentation, vertical transmission, and maternal and perinatal outcomes 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN): elaboration and examples 93%
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials 93%
- Evidence of unexplained discrepancies between planned and conducted statistical analyses: a review of randomized trials 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
- Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study 93%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 90%
- Direct Economic Burden of Mental Health Disorders Associated with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 90%
- Addressing cultural and knowledge barriers to enable preclinical sex inclusive research 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.