No abstract

Background: To address concerns about the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials, and the potential for biased treatment effects in poorly reported trials, medical journals have adopted a common set of reporting guidelines, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, to improve the reporting of randomized controlled trials.Hypothesis: The reporting of clinical trials involving dogs and cats might not be ideal, and this might be associated with biased treatment effects.Animals: Dogs and cats used in 100 randomly selected reports of clinical trials. Methods: Data related to methodological quality and completeness of reporting were extracted from each trial. Associations between reporting of trial features and the proportion of positive treatment effects within trials were evaluated by generalized linear models.Results: There were substantive deficiencies in reporting of key trial features. An increased proportion of positive treatment effects within a trial was associated with not reporting: the method used to generate the random allocation sequence (P o .001), the use of double blinding (P o .001), the inclusion criteria for study subjects (P 5 .003), baseline differences between treatment groups (P 5 .006), the measurement used for all outcomes (P 5 .002), and possible study limitations (P 5 .03).Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Many clinical trials involving dogs and cats in the literature do not report details related to methodological quality and aspects necessary to evaluate external validity. There is some evidence that these deficiencies are associated with treatment effects. There is a need to improve reporting of clinical trials, and guidelines, such as the CONSORT statement, can provide a valuable tool for meeting this need.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy. Therefore, it is important that RCTs are conducted with methodological rigor to prevent biased results and report results in a manner that allows the reader to evaluate internal and external validity. Most human health journals now require manuscripts to meet the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for reporting of RCTs. Our objective was to evaluate preharvest food safety trials using a modification of the CONSORT criteria to assess methodological quality and completeness of reporting, and to investigate associations between reporting and treatment effects. One hundred randomly selected trials were evaluated using a modified CONSORT statement. The majority of the selected trials (84%) used a deliberate disease challenge, with the remainder representing natural pathogen exposure. There were widespread deficiencies in the reporting of many trial features. Randomization, double blinding, and the number of subjects lost to follow-up were reported in only 46%, 0%, and 43% of trials, respectively. The inclusion criteria for study subjects were only described in 16% of trials, and the number of animals housed together was only stated in 52% of the trials. Although 91 trials had more than one outcome, no trials specified the primary outcome of interest. There were significant bivariable associations between the proportion of positive treatment effects and failure to report the number of subjects lost to follow-up, the number of animals housed together in a group, the level of treatment allocation, and possible study limitations. The results suggest that there are substantive deficiencies in reporting of preharvest food safety trials, and that these deficiencies may be associated with biased treatment effects. The creation and adoption of standards for reporting in preharvest food safety trials will help to ensure the inclusion of important trial details in all publications.