评估区域麻醉干预临床试验安全报告的完整性:一项注册-发表比较系统综述。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Caitlin McCormick, Danielle Waller, Ahmed Elghzali, Logan Corwin, Tag Harris, Rachel Hazlitt, Daniel Archer, Alicia I Ford, Matt Vassar
{"title":"评估区域麻醉干预临床试验安全报告的完整性:一项注册-发表比较系统综述。","authors":"Caitlin McCormick, Danielle Waller, Ahmed Elghzali, Logan Corwin, Tag Harris, Rachel Hazlitt, Daniel Archer, Alicia I Ford, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2025-107055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland-Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ<sup>2</sup> tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0-7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule-mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the completeness of safety reporting in clinical trials of regional anesthesia interventions: a registry-publication comparison systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin McCormick, Danielle Waller, Ahmed Elghzali, Logan Corwin, Tag Harris, Rachel Hazlitt, Daniel Archer, Alicia I Ford, Matt Vassar\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/rapm-2025-107055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland-Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ<sup>2</sup> tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0-7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule-mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107055\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:不良事件(ae)报告的不完整或不一致破坏了随机试验的可解释性。在介入区域麻醉(RA)中,手术风险必须清楚地传达,这种差异可能会模糊安全性概况。本研究评估了ClinicalTrials.gov上报道的AE数据与相应的同行评审出版物之间的一致性。方法:我们对ClinicalTrials.gov上注册的介入性RA试验进行了系统回顾,并发表了结果。AE数据一式两份提取,涉及四个领域:严重不良事件、其他不良事件、治疗相关停药和全因死亡率。描述性统计描述了试验的特征。Bland-Altman和漏斗图评估报告一致性和偏倚。χ2检验比较了法规状态下报告的完整性。从美国食品药品监督管理局修订法案最终规则规定的领域中得出的综合0-7 AE报告得分,使用线性和分段回归分析,以确定报告和时间趋势的预测因子。结果:在纳入的试验中,在ClinicalTrials.gov和出版物之间观察到AE计数存在显著差异。漏斗图不对称提示在较小的研究中可能漏报。符合FDA报告要求的试验更有可能报告完整的AE数据(讨论:在RA试验中,AE报告经常不完整或来源不一致,监管监督与更高的透明度有关。这些发现强调需要标准化的安全报告以及注册和出版物之间的一致性,以确保麻醉学研究中准确的风险沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the completeness of safety reporting in clinical trials of regional anesthesia interventions: a registry-publication comparison systematic review.

Background: Incomplete or inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) undermines the interpretability of randomized trials. In interventional regional anesthesia (RA), where procedural risks must be clearly communicated, such discrepancies may obscure safety profiles. This study evaluates concordance between AE data reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of interventional RA trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with published results. AE data were extracted in duplicate across four domains: serious adverse events, other adverse events, treatment-related discontinuations, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics characterized trial features. Bland-Altman and funnel plots assessed reporting concordance and bias. χ2 tests compared reporting completeness by regulatory status. A composite 0-7 AE reporting score, derived from Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule-mandated fields, was analyzed using linear and segmented regressions to identify predictors of reporting and temporal trends.

Results: Among included trials, substantial discrepancies were observed in AE counts between ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible underreporting in smaller studies. Trials subject to FDA reporting requirements were significantly more likely to report complete AE data (p<0.05). Composite AE reporting scores were higher in industry-sponsored and drug-focused trials. Segmented regression identified a modest post-Final Rule increase in reporting completeness, though recent-year instability limits interpretation.

Discussion: In RA trials, AE reporting is frequently incomplete or discordant across sources, with regulatory oversight linked to greater transparency. These findings highlight the need for standardized safety reporting and alignment between registries and publications to ensure accurate risk communication in anesthesiology research.

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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
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