@article{RiemerKrankeHelfetal.2021,
  author    = {Riemer, Manuel and Kranke, Peter and Helf, Antonia and Mayer, Debora and Popp, Maria and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting},
  series = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265518},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the 'Cochrane Risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0. Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22\% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36\% (27/75) were pro- and 64\% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41\% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22\% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37\% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32\%), a new primary outcome (26\%), and different outcome assessment times (26\%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80\% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as 'overall low risk of bias' compared to non-registered trials (64\% vs 28\%). Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HillDossowHeylandetal.2022,
  author    = {Hill, Aileen and Dossow, Vera von and Heyland, Daren K. and Rossaint, Rolf and Meybohm, Patrick and Fox, Henrik and Morshuis, Michiel and Elke, Gunnar and Panholzer, Bernd and Haneya, Assad and B{\"o}ning, Andreas and Niemann, Bernd and Zayat, Rashad and Moza, Ajay and Stoppe, Christian},
  title     = {Preoperative nutritional optimization and physical exercise for patients scheduled for elective implantation for a left-ventricular assist device — The PROPER-LVAD study},
  series = {Surgeries},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {Surgeries},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {2673-4095},
  doi       = {10.3390/surgeries3040031},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288317},
  pages     = {284 -- 296},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background: Prehabilitation is gaining increasing interest and shows promising effects on short- and long-term outcomes among patients undergoing major surgery. The effect of multimodal, interdisciplinary prehabilitation has not yet been studied in patients with severe heart failure scheduled for the implantation of a left-ventricular assist device (LVAD). Methods: This randomized controlled multi-center study evaluates the effect of preoperative combined optimization of nutritional and functional status. Patients in the intervention group are prescribed daily in-bed cycling and oral nutrition supplements (ONS) from study inclusion until the day before LVAD-implantation. Patients in the control group receive standard of care treatment. The primary outcomes for the pilot study that involves 48 patients are safety (occurrence of adverse events), efficacy (group separation regarding the intake of macronutrients), feasibility of the trial protocol (compliance (percentage of received interventions) and confirmation of recruitment rates. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal measurements of muscle mass, muscle strength, physical function and quality of life, next to traditional clinical outcomes (30-day mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and number of complications and infections). If the pilot study is successful, a larger confirmatory, international multicenter study is warranted.},
  language  = {en}
}