Outcome reporting from clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with traditional Chinese medicine or Western medicine: a systematic review. Issue 8 (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Qiu, Ruijin; Hu, Jiayuan; Huang, Ya; Han, Songjie; Zhong, Changming; Li, Min; He, Tianmai; Lin, Yiyi; Guan, Manke; Chen, Jing; Shang, Hongcai
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 8(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: outcomes -- clinical trials, non-valvular atrial fibrillation -- systematic review; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028803
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To examine variation in outcomes, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) and measurement times in clinical trials of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in developing a core outcome set (COS) in this field. Design: This study was a systematic review. Data sources: Clinical trials published between January 2015 and March 2019 were obtained from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were considered. Interventions included traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. The required treatment duration or follow-up time was ≥4 weeks. The required sample size was ≥30 and≥50 in each group in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. We excluded trials that aimed to investigate the outcome of complications of NVAF, to assess the mechanisms or pharmacokinetics, or for which full text could not be acquired. Data extraction and synthesis: The general information and outcomes, OMIs and measurement times were extracted. The methodological and outcome reporting quality were assessed. The results were analysed by descriptive analysis. Results: A total of 218 articles were included from 25 255 articles. For clinical trials of antiarrhythmic therapy, 69 outcomes from 16 outcome domains were reported, and 28 (31.82%, 28/88) outcomes were reported only once; the most frequently reported outcome was ultrasonic cardiogram. Thirty-one outcomes (44.93%, 31/69) were provided definitions or OMIs; the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 20 with a median of 3. For clinical trials of anticoagulation therapy, 82 outcomes from 18 outcome domains were reported; 38 (29.23%, 38/130) outcomes were reported only once. The most frequently reported outcome was ischaemic stroke. Forty (48.78%, 40/82) outcomes were provided OMIs or definitions; and the outcome measurement times ranged from 1 to 27 with a median of 8. Conclusion: Outcome reporting in NVAF is inconsistent. Thus, developing a COS that can be used in clinical trials is necessary.