Reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Urology Journals: An Updated Analysis.

Abstract

Harms are often overlooked, but important, outcomes of randomized controlled trial reporting. Our goal was to determine if harms reporting has improved in high-impact urology journals. Randomized controlled trials published in <i>The Journal of Urology</i>^®, <i>Urology</i>, <i>European Urology</i>, and <i>BJU International</i> in 2012 and 2020 were analyzed. Each randomized controlled trial was evaluated by 2 authors in a masked-duplicate fashion to evaluate for adherence to harms reporting guidelines recommended by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. One hundred and thirty-two published studies met inclusion criteria. Between 2012 and 2020, there was a statistically significant increase in the median number of harms criteria reported between 2012 and 2020 (5.3 vs 7.2; <i>P</i> = .01). Methods criteria demonstrating the greatest improvements included item #3 "which harms were assessed," item #4a "when harm information was collected," and item #4b "methods to attribute harm to intervention." Results sections with the most improvement in reporting include item #6 "reasons for patient withdrawal," item #8a "effect size for harms," and item #8b "stratified serious + minor harms." Reporting of adverse events in randomized trials published in several top urology journals has demonstrated marked improvement. Studies published in 2020 reported approximately 70% of CONSORT-Harms criteria-an increase of nearly 40% since 2004. While these improvements mark significant change, deficits remain present and should be addressed to provide clinicians with the most complete perspective possible.