We have identified ‘spin’ in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin as the ‘use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results’. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56% (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2%) titles, 24 (21%) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1%) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15% of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10%). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.

To evaluate global public interest in osteoarthritis by assessing changes in Internet search popularity of the disease over a 10-year period. Google Trends was used to obtain search popularity scores for the word "osteoarthritis" (OA) between January 2004 and June 2018. We also analyzed changes in search volume relative to changes in search patterns for all health topics. Search interest in OA was high relative to all other health searches over the given timeframe. Overall, searches for OA steadily decreased between May 2004 and December 2012 and then steadily rose from January 2013 to April 2018. We also found consistent annual fluctuations over the pre-specified time range, with biannual peaks typically correlating with national and global awareness days. Biannual dips occurred with changes in seasonal patterns. Google searches for OA have steadily increased in recent years. Awareness initiatives, like World Arthritis Day, may be a reason for the public to search for information on OA. It may be helpful for physicians to search the Internet themselves for websites that provide accurate and high-quality information to recommend to their patients.

No abstract

ObjectivesEvaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.SettingNot applicable.ParticipantsRCTs identified using a PubMed search of 15 addiction journals and a 5-year cross-section.Outcome measuresCompleteness of reporting.ResultsOur analysis of 394 addiction RCTs found that the mean number of CONSORT items reported was 19.2 (SD 5.2), out of a possible 31. Twelve items were reported in <50% of RCTs; similarly, 12 items were reported in >75% of RCTs. Journal endorsement of CONSORT was found to improve the number of CONSORT items reported.ConclusionsPoor reporting quality may prohibit readers from critically appraising the methodological quality of addiction trials. We recommend journal endorsement of CONSORT since our study and those previous have shown that CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reporting.

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest-level of evidence among primary research in cardiovascular medicine. Yet, even the best trial may be less useful if it fails to provide an accurate means of reproducibility. Unfortunately, discrepancies in the standards of trial reporting have been persistent in previous trials. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist aims to improve research efficacy by setting standards for quality intervention reporting and reproducibility. The goal of this study was to assess adherence to the TIDieR checklist among RCTs published in cardiovascular health journals. We also compared the quality of intervention reporting before and after the publication of TIDieR.MethodsThis cross-sectional, methodological study analysed 101 trials published within high-impact cardiology journals. Our primary objective was to assess overall adherence to the TIDieR checklist. Our secondary objective was to use an interrupted time-series analysis to determine if intervention reporting increased following the publication of TIDieR in March 2014. Additionally, we used generalised estimating equations to identify trial characteristics associated with intervention reporting.ResultsTrials in our sample reported 8.6/12 TIDieR checklist items, on average. The most under-reported items were those for describing the expertise of the interventionists and for describing the location of the intervention.ConclusionImproved outcome reporting and intervention reproducibility among RCTs are greatly needed in cardiovascular medicine. Clinicians and researchers should advocate for the ethical publication of complete, translatable and replicable clinical research results.

No abstract

Objectives/HypothesisRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a crucial role in advancing patient care within otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OTL‐HNS), yet studies have shown the reporting of these trials needs improvement. Here, we evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting of RCTs in OTL‐HNS and evaluate whether the publication of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist has influenced intervention reporting.Study DesignRetrospective Cross‐Sectional Analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed for RCTs published in top OTL‐HNS journals in two cohorts, one before the release of the TIDieR and one afterward. A sample of 300 RCTs was randomly selected and screened for inclusion. Once the dataset was finalized, we extracted trial characteristics and assessed each trial's adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We then used descriptive characteristics, a generalized estimated equation, time‐series analysis, and a two‐sample t test to analyze our data.ResultsAfter screening was completed, 173 RCTs were included in our analysis. Of these RCTs, 103 (59.5%) showed <60% adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We found a slight increase in adherence to TIDieR items after the checklist was released, although this was not statistically significant (P = .91). In addition, we found that trials with a crossover study design or multiple interventions and those that provided a Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials statement were associated with greater adherence to the TIDieR checklist.ConclusionsThe majority of OTL‐HNS RCTs included in our analysis showed suboptimal reporting factors related to the TIDieR checklist. Requiring a TIDieR statement and automating the journal requirements process for all OTL‐HNS clinical trials would be a worthwhile, efficient approach to improving research quality and ultimately patient care within OTL‐HNS.Level of EvidenceNA Laryngoscope, 130:E507–E514, 2020

No abstract