Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26566930›Full record

SynthesisTrials2015

Quality of outcome reporting in phase II studies in pulmonary tuberculosis.

Laura Jayne Bonnett, Geraint Rhys Davies

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparing the Efficacy of Drug Regimens for Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Meta-analysis of Endpoints in Early-Phase Clinical Trials.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Field Grand Challenge Frontiers in Antibiotics.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura Jayne BonnettDepartment of Biostatistics & Department of Clinical Infection, Microbiology & Immunology, University of Liverpool, Waterhouse Building, Block F, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK. L.J.Bonnett@liv.ac.uk.
Geraint Rhys DaviesDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology, & Immunology, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, UK. gerrydavies@doctors.org.uk.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major killer amongst the infectious diseases. Current treatment involves a four-drug regimen for at least 6 months. New drugs and regimens are required to shorten treatment duration, reduce toxicity and combat drug resistance, but the optimal methodology to define the critical path for novel regimens is not well defined. We undertook a systematic review to summarise outcomes reported in Phase II trials of patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary TB to assess the need for a core outcome set. A systematic search of databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACs) was conducted on 1 May 2015 to retrieve relevant peer-reviewed articles. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. This systematic review considered all reported outcomes. Risk of bias was considered via sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, reasons for exclusions, and selective reporting. Of 55 included studies, 20 were Phase IIB studies based on culture conversion, 32 were Phase IIA studies based on quantitative bacteriology, and three considered alternative outcomes. Large variation in reported outcomes and trial characteristics was observed across the included studies. Bacteriological results were as often expressed in terms of positivity as negativity, with varying definitions of culture conversion. Variation in reporting was particularly marked for Phase IIA studies, where multiple time intervals were typically selected for analysis and sometimes resulted in differing interpretations of the efficacy of drugs or regimens. Within both Phase IIA and IIB studies, there was variation in the time points at which the study participants were sampled, as well as in the bacteriological media and methods used. For successful future meta-analysis of early-phase studies, the findings of this review suggest that development of a core outcome set would be desirable. This would enable trial results to be more easily compared and combined, potentially leading to more effective development of new treatment strategies for patients with TB. Pending development of, and agreement on, such a core outcome set, we suggest some interim recommendations for reporting of future phase II studies of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Indexed as

Antitubercular AgentsBacteriological TechniquesClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicDrug Resistance, BacterialEndpoint DeterminationHumansPredictive Value of TestsQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeTuberculosis, PulmonaryAntitubercular Agents

Identifiers

PMID26566930
PMCPMC4644328
OpenAlexW2177926937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.