Substandard reporting of endpoints mars dermatology trials

In recent dermatology literature, the quality of primary endpoint reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains below average, according to the results of a recent study.

Primary reports of RCTs (n=134) among original articles in four dermatology journals published between January 2016 and December 2018 were included in this analysis that assessed the quality of reporting primary endpoints in RCTs.

The authors extracted details from articles, supplements, and trial registries. They also conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the factors associated with unsatisfactory reporting of primary endpoints.

Of the RCTs included, 76 (56.7 percent) carried out adequate reporting of primary endpoints; however, nine missed the definition of primary endpoints, and 13 failed to define the timing of the main outcomes in their publications.

In 113 RCTs that explicitly reported primary endpoints in the articles, 16 were found to have discrepancies between registration and publication, while 21 were unable to estimate prespecification of primary endpoints.

Of note, multicentre studies and sponsor-initiated trials significantly correlated with satisfactory reporting quality after adjusting for covariates.

The current study had certain limitations, such as the evaluation of prespecification based on a comparison of the article and registry.

“Appropriate primary endpoints in RCTs improve the quality of the measurement and enable comparison of the findings with those of other trials,” the authors said.