Methods and Outcomes Reporting in Exercise-Based Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Research: a cross-sectional analysis - Freccia, Guilherme W; dos Santos, Rafaella Zulianello; De Lucca, Leonardo; Korbes, Andrea Schaefer; de Carvalho, Tales (medRxiv, 2022)
The poor reporting quality of methods and outcomes is relatively recognized in the biomedical field. Its prevalence and implications have been studied in the cardiovascular rehabilitation literature but not so extensively in exercise-based trials. Our main objective was to cross-sectionally estimate the prevalence of both methodological and outcome reporting items in CVR trials with EBI. We also searched for associations (secondary outcomes) between (1) the effect size reported and the direction of the primary outcome, as well as (2) associations with the frequency of Spin. We cross-sectionally screened the sample of eligible trials dated between 2017 and 2021, and then collected the prevalence of methodological and outcome characteristics, independent and blinded manner. Our study shows that there was an insufficient reporting of methods and outcomes. Also, studies reporting effect size measures had a lower chance of Spin. The primary outcome effect size was not reported in 35% of the studies SES. However, more than 2/3 of the sample (69%) had a statement in the discussion or conclusion sections mentioning clinical relevance or meaningful benefit of the statistically significant results. Selective outcome reporting has important implications for translating science into practice, once not so threatens the validity of an intervention effectiveness, but also frustrates the use of its evidence in meta-analyses.What is new?Our study shows that randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular rehabilitation based on exercise insufficiently reported the various methods and outcomes characteristics.Although nearly 70% studies had stated its outcomes as clinically meaningful within our sample, about 41%of the studies clearly stated the primary outcome confidence intervals.More than half of the sample presented at least one spin in the results section, and studies reporting effect size measures had a lower chance of Spin.40% of the studies within our sample did not report a priori sample size calculation, with 1/4 not stating the number of randomized subjects that could meet the intended power.We did not find any associations regarding the direction of the results (positive or negative) and the prevalence of spin, contrary to what have been found in the literature.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online indefinitely at https://osf.io/754ht/ https://osf.io/754ht/