ArticleThoracic cancer2021
Reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials evaluating immunotherapy in lung cancer.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials evaluating immunotherapy in lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the improvement of therapeutic strategies from cytotoxic chemotherapy to immunotherapy, the possibility of achieving timely intervention for lung cancer has dramatically increased. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on immunotherapy in lung cancer.
methodsThe RCTs evaluating the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer published up to 2021 were searched and collected from PUBMED and EMBASE by two investigators. The 2010 Consolidated Standards for Test Reports (CONSORT) statement-based 28-point overall quality score (OQS) and the 2001 CONSORT statement-based 19-point OQS was utilized for assessing the overall quality of each report.
resultsOne hundred and fifty-two related RCTs were retrieved in this study, including 81,931 patients. The average OQS in 2010 was 17.89 (range, 7.5-24.5). Overall, studies have sufficiently reported the eligibility criteria (143/152; 94.07%), described the scientific background (150/152; 98.7%) and discussed interventions (147/152; 96.7%). However, the RCTs did not consistently report the changes to trial after commencement (48/152; 31.6%), allocation, enrollment and assignment personnel (34/152; 22.4%), blinding (48/152; 31.6%), or randomization method (58/152; 38.2%).
conclusionsThe overall reporting quality of RCTs on immunotherapy in lung cancer was found to be unsatisfactory despite the fact that the CONSORT statement was issued more than a decade ago. Furthermore, there was virtual selectivity and heterogeneity in reporting some key issues in these trials. This is the first study to enlighten lung cancer researchers especially focusing on immunotherapy, and also to remind editors and peer reviewers to strengthen their due diligence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.