Background Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important source of bias in trials. Despite legislation, guidelines and public commitments on correct reporting from journals, outcome misreporting continues to be prevalent. We aimed to document the extent of misreporting, establish whether it was possible to publish correction letters on all misreported trials as they were published, and monitor responses from editors and trialists to understand why outcome misreporting persists despite public commitments to address it. Methods We identified five high-impact journals endorsing Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) ( New England Journal of Medicine , The Lancet , Journal of the American Medical Association , British Medical Journal , and Annals of Internal Medicine ) and assessed all trials over a six-week period to identify every correctly and incorrectly reported outcome, comparing published reports against published protocols or registry entries, using CONSORT as the gold standard. A correction letter describing all discrepancies was submitted to the journal for all misreported trials, and detailed coding sheets were shared publicly. The proportion of letters published and delay to publication were assessed over 12 months of follow-up. Correspondence received from journals and authors was documented and themes were extracted. Results Sixty-seven trials were assessed in total. Outcome reporting was poor overall and there was wide variation between journals on pre-specified primary outcomes (mean 76% correctly reported, journal range 25–96%), secondary outcomes (mean 55%, range 31–72%), and number of undeclared additional outcomes per trial (mean 5.4, range 2.9–8.3). Fifty-eight trials had discrepancies requiring a correction letter (87%, journal range 67–100%). Twenty-three letters were published (40%) with extensive variation between journals (range 0–100%). Where letters were published, there were delays (median 99 days, range 0–257 days). Twenty-nine studies had a pre-trial protocol publicly available (43%, range 0–86%). Qualitative analysis demonstrated extensive misunderstandings among journal editors about correct outcome reporting and CONSORT. Some journals did not engage positively when provided correspondence that identified misreporting; we identified possible breaches of ethics and publishing guidelines. Conclusions All five journals were listed as endorsing CONSORT, but all exhibited extensive breaches of this guidance, and most rejected correction letters documenting shortcomings. Readers are likely to be misled by this discrepancy. We discuss the advantages of prospective methodology research sharing all data openly and pro-actively in real time as feedback on critiqued studies. This is the first empirical study of major ...

Background Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important and prevalent source of bias in clinical trials. COMPare (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project) monitored all trials in five leading journals for correct outcome reporting, submitted correction letters on all misreported trials in real time, and then monitored responses from editors and trialists. From the trialists’ responses, we aimed to answer two related questions. First, what can trialists’ responses to corrections on their own misreported trials tell us about trialists’ knowledge of correct outcome reporting? Second, what can a cohort of responses to a standardised correction letter tell us about how researchers respond to systematic critical post-publication peer review? Methods All correspondence from trialists, published by journals in response to a correction letter from COMPare, was filed and indexed. We analysed the letters qualitatively and identified key themes in researchers’ errors about correct outcome reporting, and approaches taken by researchers when their work was criticised. Results Trialists frequently expressed views that contradicted the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines or made inaccurate statements about correct outcome reporting. Common themes were: stating that pre-specification after trial commencement is acceptable; incorrect statements about registries; incorrect statements around the handling of multiple time points; and failure to recognise the need to report changes to pre-specified outcomes in the trial report. We identified additional themes in the approaches taken by researchers when responding to critical correspondence, including the following: ad hominem criticism; arguing that trialists should be trusted, rather than follow guidelines for trial reporting; appealing to the existence of a novel category of outcomes whose results need not necessarily be reported; incorrect statements by researchers about their own paper; and statements undermining transparency infrastructure, such as trial registers. Conclusions Researchers commonly make incorrect statements about correct trial reporting. There are recurring themes in researchers’ responses when their work is criticised, some of which fall short of the scientific ideal. Research on methodological shortcomings is now common, typically in the form of retrospective cohort studies describing the overall prevalence of a problem. We argue that prospective cohort studies which additionally issue correction letters in real time on each individual flawed study—and then follow-up responses from trialists and journals—are more impactful, more informative for those consuming the studies critiqued, more informative on the causes of shortcomings in research, and a better use of research resources. Electronic supplementary material The online v...

When a patient is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after a traumatic brain injury (TBI), an early prognosis is essential for baseline risk adjustment and shared decision making. TBI outcomes are commonly categorised by the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOSE) into eight, ordered levels of functional recovery at 6 months after injury. Existing ICU prognostic models predict binary outcomes at a certain threshold of GOSE (e.g., prediction of survival [GOSE > 1]). We aimed to develop ordinal prediction models that concurrently predict probabilities of each GOSE score. From a prospective cohort (n = 1,550, 65 centres) in the ICU stratum of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) patient dataset, we extracted all clinical information within 24 hours of ICU admission (1,151 predictors) and 6-month GOSE scores. We analysed the effect of two design elements on ordinal model performance: (1) the baseline predictor set, ranging from a concise set of ten validated predictors to a token-embedded representation of all possible predictors, and (2) the modelling strategy, from ordinal logistic regression to multinomial deep learning. With repeated k-fold cross-validation, we found that expanding the baseline predictor set significantly improved ordinal prediction performance while increasing analytical complexity did not. Half of these gains could be achieved with the addition of eight high-impact predictors to the concise set. At best, ordinal models achieved 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74–0.77) ordinal discrimination ability (ordinal c-index) and 57% (95% CI: 54%– 60%) explanation of ordinal variation in 6-month GOSE (Somers’ Dxy). Model performance and the effect of expanding the predictor set decreased at higher GOSE thresholds, indicating the difficulty of predicting better functional outcomes shortly after ICU admission. Our results motivate the search for informative predictors that improve confidence in prognosis of higher GOSE and the development of ordinal dynamic prediction models.

No abstract

Methods: This non-randomised prospective study included 77 patients of age ≥ 12 years with confirmed diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia between January 2018 & January 2019. Detailed history was taken & examination performed for signs & etiology of IDA. The cut-off serum ferritin level for IDA diagnosis was < 15 ng/ml. Pregnant females and patients with concurrent vitamin B12 deficiency were excluded. All patients were treated with Injection Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) by I.V. infusion over 30 minutes in day care. Total dose of parenteral iron was calculated according to Ganzoni Formula: Total iron deficit (mg) = 2.4 x body weight (kg) x [target haemoglobin -actual haemoglobin (g/dl)] + 500 mg (depot iron). The maximum dose of FCM administered in a single infusion was 1000 mg. Patients with total iron dose > 1000 mg received two divided doses one week apart. Patients also received oral folic acid at 5 mg/day dose for at least 3 weeks. Appropriate workup for etiology of IDA was performed in all patients. Therapeutic response was assessed after 3 weeks of first FCM dose & was defined as hemoglobin increase of ≥ 2 g/dl from baseline. Results: The median age of patients was 33 years (range 16 -75 years) and majority (78%) were females. The median baseline hemoglobin was 5 g/dl (range 2.0 -8.6 g/dl). Therapeutic response was achieved in 100% patients. Mean increase in haemoglobin at 3 weeks was 4.2 g/dl (range 2.8 -5.5 g/dl). One patient had mild headache during FCM infusion. There was no infusion-related toxicity or any other adverse event. Summary/Conclusion: In our study, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was found to be highly effective & safe alternative to oral iron for treatment of iron deficiency anemia, with excellent patient compliance. It is ideally suited for patients who require rapid replenishment of iron stores.