Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31073927›Full record

ArticleDrugs & aging2019

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

Germain Honvo, Raveendhara R Bannuru, Olivier Bruyère, Francois Rannou, Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont, Daniel Uebelhart, Cyrus Cooper, Nigel Arden, Philip G Conaghan, Jean-Yves Reginster and 2 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs & aging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

12 authors.

Germain HonvoDepartment of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. germain.honvo@uliege.be.ORCID 0000-0002-6992-6712
Raveendhara R BannuruDivision of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Center for Treatment Comparison and Integrative Analysis, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Olivier BruyèreDepartment of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Francois RannouDivision of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Rheumatology, AP-HP Cochin Hospital, INSERM U1124, Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Gabriel Herrero-BeaumontBone and Joint Research Unit, Department of Rheumatology, Fundación Jiménez Diaz, Universidad Autonoma, Madrid, Spain.
Daniel UebelhartDivision of Musculoskeletal, Internal Medicine and Oncological Rehabilitation, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hôpital du Valais (HVS), Centre Hospitalier du Valais Romand (CHVR), CVP, Crans-Montana, Switzerland.
Cyrus CooperWHO Collaborating Centre for Public Heath Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium.
Nigel ArdenMusculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Philip G ConaghanLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Jean-Yves ReginsterDepartment of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Thierry ThomasDepartment of Rheumatology, Hôpital Nord, CHU de St-Etienne and INSERM 1059, Université de Lyon, Saint-Étienne, France.
Tim McAlindonDivision of Rheumatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Comparative effectiveness of mind-body interventions for osteoarthritis - individual patient data network meta-analysisK23AT009374 · NCCIH · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI BANNURU, RAVEENDHARA REDDY · 2017 to 2021
$830k
Medical Research Council G0400491Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1NCCIH NIH HHS K23 AT009374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal.

objectiveThe European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses.

methodsUsing the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs.

resultsThese recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance.

conclusionsThese recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAnalgesicsConsensusDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEuropeGuidelines as TopicHumansOsteoarthritisOsteoporosisOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocieties, MedicalAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID31073927
PMCPMC6509216

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.