在以周围神经阻滞为重点的随机对照试验中,患者报告的结果遵循conber - pro扩展指南:一项荟萃流行病学研究。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-06 DOI:10.1007/s40122-025-00766-y
Adam Khan, Tiffany Nguyen, Bryan Dunford, Taimoor Khan, Mahnoor Khalid, Cody Hillman, Samuel Shepard, Micah Kee, Will Roberts, Ashlyn Terrell, Landon Stallings, Ryan Ottwell, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar
{"title":"在以周围神经阻滞为重点的随机对照试验中,患者报告的结果遵循conber - pro扩展指南:一项荟萃流行病学研究。","authors":"Adam Khan, Tiffany Nguyen, Bryan Dunford, Taimoor Khan, Mahnoor Khalid, Cody Hillman, Samuel Shepard, Micah Kee, Will Roberts, Ashlyn Terrell, Landon Stallings, Ryan Ottwell, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00766-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as peri- and postoperative pain scores, capture patient perspectives in regional anesthesia trials. However, whether these outcomes are reported according to established guidelines remains unclear. The CONSORT statement and its PRO extension (CONSORT-PRO) aim to enhance transparency in reporting PROs, yet no study has investigated adherence in peripheral nerve block (PNB) trials. Our meta-epidemiological investigation evaluated how well PNB randomized controlled trials (RCTs) adhere with CONSORT-PRO and explored whether trial characteristics affect reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a cross-sectional, meta-epidemiological study to determine adherence to CONSORT-PRO reporting guidelines in RCTs. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE for RCT publications investigating PNBs between 2006 and 2020. RCTs investigating PNBs that incorporated PROs as a primary or secondary outcome were included. All other studies, reviews, or publications without a PRO were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 65 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Mean CONSORT-PRO adherence was 46.80 ± 17.36%, and trials that designated a PRO as the primary endpoint were more adherent than those in which the PRO was secondary (49.27 ± 16.58% versus 38.57 ± 17.92%; P = 0.035). Trials with ≥ 6-month follow-up were 16.24% more adherent than those with ≤ 3-month follow-up (P = 0.006). Studies that used a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) in combination with other PRO instruments were significantly more adherent than trials using VAS alone (P = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-epidemiological review reveals substantial nonadherence to CONSORT-PRO guidelines in PNB trials. Although PROs are crucial for capturing patient-centered outcomes, they remain under-reported, especially when treated as secondary endpoints. Using diverse, validated measures beyond VAS/NRS and consistently applying CONSORT-PRO can enhance the quality, transparency, and clinical relevance of future trials. Targeted education for authors, editors, and clinicians-and expanded research on neuraxial techniques-will further strengthen reporting standards and the interpretability of anesthesia evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1531-1546"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12484481/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adherence to CONSORT-PRO Extension Guidelines for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials Focused on Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Meta-epidemiological Study.\",\"authors\":\"Adam Khan, Tiffany Nguyen, Bryan Dunford, Taimoor Khan, Mahnoor Khalid, Cody Hillman, Samuel Shepard, Micah Kee, Will Roberts, Ashlyn Terrell, Landon Stallings, Ryan Ottwell, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40122-025-00766-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as peri- and postoperative pain scores, capture patient perspectives in regional anesthesia trials. However, whether these outcomes are reported according to established guidelines remains unclear. The CONSORT statement and its PRO extension (CONSORT-PRO) aim to enhance transparency in reporting PROs, yet no study has investigated adherence in peripheral nerve block (PNB) trials. Our meta-epidemiological investigation evaluated how well PNB randomized controlled trials (RCTs) adhere with CONSORT-PRO and explored whether trial characteristics affect reporting quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a cross-sectional, meta-epidemiological study to determine adherence to CONSORT-PRO reporting guidelines in RCTs. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE for RCT publications investigating PNBs between 2006 and 2020. RCTs investigating PNBs that incorporated PROs as a primary or secondary outcome were included. All other studies, reviews, or publications without a PRO were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 65 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Mean CONSORT-PRO adherence was 46.80 ± 17.36%, and trials that designated a PRO as the primary endpoint were more adherent than those in which the PRO was secondary (49.27 ± 16.58% versus 38.57 ± 17.92%; P = 0.035). Trials with ≥ 6-month follow-up were 16.24% more adherent than those with ≤ 3-month follow-up (P = 0.006). Studies that used a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) in combination with other PRO instruments were significantly more adherent than trials using VAS alone (P = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-epidemiological review reveals substantial nonadherence to CONSORT-PRO guidelines in PNB trials. Although PROs are crucial for capturing patient-centered outcomes, they remain under-reported, especially when treated as secondary endpoints. Using diverse, validated measures beyond VAS/NRS and consistently applying CONSORT-PRO can enhance the quality, transparency, and clinical relevance of future trials. Targeted education for authors, editors, and clinicians-and expanded research on neuraxial techniques-will further strengthen reporting standards and the interpretability of anesthesia evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1531-1546\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12484481/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00766-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00766-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在区域麻醉试验中,患者报告的结果(PROs),如围手术期和术后疼痛评分,反映了患者的观点。然而,这些结果是否按照既定的指导方针报告仍不清楚。CONSORT声明及其PRO扩展(CONSORT-PRO)旨在提高PRO报告的透明度,但尚未有研究调查外周神经阻滞(PNB)试验的依从性。我们的荟萃流行病学调查评估了PNB随机对照试验(rct)遵循conber - pro的程度,并探讨了试验特征是否影响报告质量。方法:我们进行了一项横断面、荟萃流行病学研究,以确定在随机对照试验中是否遵守了conber - pro报告指南。我们检索了Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(Central)、Embase和MEDLINE,检索了2006年至2020年间调查pnb的RCT出版物。纳入了将PROs作为主要或次要结局的pnb随机对照试验。所有其他没有PRO的研究、综述或出版物均被排除在外。结果:共有65项rct符合纳入标准。平均partner -PRO依从性为46.80±17.36%,指定PRO为主要终点的试验比指定PRO为次要终点的试验的依从性更高(49.27±16.58%对38.57±17.92%;p = 0.035)。随访≥6个月的试验的依从性比随访≤3个月的试验高16.24% (P = 0.006)。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)或数字评定量表(NRS)联合其他PRO工具的研究明显比单独使用VAS的试验更有依从性(P = 0.028)。结论:我们的荟萃流行病学综述显示,PNB试验中存在大量不遵守conber - pro指南的情况。虽然赞成度对于获取以患者为中心的结果至关重要,但它们仍然被低估,特别是当作为次要终点时。除了VAS/NRS之外,使用多种有效的测量方法并持续应用contor - pro可以提高未来试验的质量、透明度和临床相关性。对作者、编辑和临床医生进行有针对性的教育,并扩大对轴向技术的研究,将进一步加强报告标准和麻醉证据的可解释性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adherence to CONSORT-PRO Extension Guidelines for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials Focused on Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as peri- and postoperative pain scores, capture patient perspectives in regional anesthesia trials. However, whether these outcomes are reported according to established guidelines remains unclear. The CONSORT statement and its PRO extension (CONSORT-PRO) aim to enhance transparency in reporting PROs, yet no study has investigated adherence in peripheral nerve block (PNB) trials. Our meta-epidemiological investigation evaluated how well PNB randomized controlled trials (RCTs) adhere with CONSORT-PRO and explored whether trial characteristics affect reporting quality.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, meta-epidemiological study to determine adherence to CONSORT-PRO reporting guidelines in RCTs. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE for RCT publications investigating PNBs between 2006 and 2020. RCTs investigating PNBs that incorporated PROs as a primary or secondary outcome were included. All other studies, reviews, or publications without a PRO were excluded.

Results: In total, 65 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Mean CONSORT-PRO adherence was 46.80 ± 17.36%, and trials that designated a PRO as the primary endpoint were more adherent than those in which the PRO was secondary (49.27 ± 16.58% versus 38.57 ± 17.92%; P = 0.035). Trials with ≥ 6-month follow-up were 16.24% more adherent than those with ≤ 3-month follow-up (P = 0.006). Studies that used a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) in combination with other PRO instruments were significantly more adherent than trials using VAS alone (P = 0.028).

Conclusions: Our meta-epidemiological review reveals substantial nonadherence to CONSORT-PRO guidelines in PNB trials. Although PROs are crucial for capturing patient-centered outcomes, they remain under-reported, especially when treated as secondary endpoints. Using diverse, validated measures beyond VAS/NRS and consistently applying CONSORT-PRO can enhance the quality, transparency, and clinical relevance of future trials. Targeted education for authors, editors, and clinicians-and expanded research on neuraxial techniques-will further strengthen reporting standards and the interpretability of anesthesia evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信