L Whitehead1, G D Perkins1, A Clarey2, K L Haywood3. 1. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK; Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham, B9 5SS, UK. 2. Royal Victoria Hospital, 274 Grosvenor Rd, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK. 3. Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: k.l.haywood@warwick.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a limited guidance for outcome reporting for cardiac arrest trials. This review was conducted to explore the degree of variation and identify trends in outcome reporting. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials enrolling patients with cardiac arrest (2002-2012) were identified by applying a search strategy to four databases. Titles, abstracts and short-listed studies were independently assessed for eligibility. Data on the primary and secondary outcome measures, details of outcome reporting and reproducibility were extracted. RESULTS: 61 studies matched the inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the focus, method and timing of assessment. Outcomes most commonly reported across studies were: survival (85.2%), activities (52.5%), body structure or function (41.0%), and processes of care (26.2%). Over 160 individual outcomes were reported including 39 different reports of survival measures of which 11 were measurements of ROSC (return of spontaneous circulation). Twenty different assessments of activity limitation were reported; only one was patient-reported. Many assessments were poorly defined or non-reproducible. The majority of outcomes were assessed up to hospital discharge (89.3%). There was no one outcome measure that was assessed across all trials. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome reporting in cardiac arrest RCTs lacks consistency and transparency. Guidance for improved outcome reporting is urgently required to reduce this heterogeneity in reporting, improve the quality of assessment in clinical trials, and to support the synthesis of trial data. The results highlight the importance of working towards a core outcome set for cardiac arrest clinical trials to maximise the utility of future research.
BACKGROUND: There is a limited guidance for outcome reporting for cardiac arrest trials. This review was conducted to explore the degree of variation and identify trends in outcome reporting. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials enrolling patients with cardiac arrest (2002-2012) were identified by applying a search strategy to four databases. Titles, abstracts and short-listed studies were independently assessed for eligibility. Data on the primary and secondary outcome measures, details of outcome reporting and reproducibility were extracted. RESULTS: 61 studies matched the inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the focus, method and timing of assessment. Outcomes most commonly reported across studies were: survival (85.2%), activities (52.5%), body structure or function (41.0%), and processes of care (26.2%). Over 160 individual outcomes were reported including 39 different reports of survival measures of which 11 were measurements of ROSC (return of spontaneous circulation). Twenty different assessments of activity limitation were reported; only one was patient-reported. Many assessments were poorly defined or non-reproducible. The majority of outcomes were assessed up to hospital discharge (89.3%). There was no one outcome measure that was assessed across all trials. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome reporting in cardiac arrest RCTs lacks consistency and transparency. Guidance for improved outcome reporting is urgently required to reduce this heterogeneity in reporting, improve the quality of assessment in clinical trials, and to support the synthesis of trial data. The results highlight the importance of working towards a core outcome set for cardiac arrest clinical trials to maximise the utility of future research.
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Kristina Lindsley; Diana V Do; Roy S Chuck; Catherine Meyerle; Leslie S Jones; Anne L Coleman; Henry D Jampel; Kay Dickersin; Gianni Virgili Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Shashank S Sinha; Devraj Sukul; John J Lazarus; Vivek Polavarapu; Paul S Chan; Robert W Neumar; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-10-18
Authors: Stephany Jaramillo; Katharyn L Flickinger; Melissa Repine; Maria Pacella-LaBarbara; Clifton W Callaway; Allison Koller; Kevin Cullison; Jon C Rittenberger Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Rachael Kathleen Gregson; Tim James Cole; Sophie Skellett; Emmanouil Bagkeris; Denise Welsby; Mark John Peters Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Jonathan R Benger; Kim Kirby; Sarah Black; Stephen J Brett; Madeleine Clout; Michelle J Lazaroo; Jerry P Nolan; Barnaby C Reeves; Maria Robinson; Lauren J Scott; Helena Smartt; Adrian South; Elizabeth A Stokes; Jodi Taylor; Matthew Thomas; Sarah Voss; Sarah Wordsworth; Chris A Rogers Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Ben Beck; Janet Bray; Karen Smith; Tony Walker; Hugh Grantham; Cindy Hein; Melanie Thorrowgood; Anthony Smith; Tony Smith; Bridget Dicker; Andy Swain; Mark Bailey; Emma Bosley; Katherine Pemberton; Peter Cameron; Graham Nichol; Judith Finn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 2.692