Inadequate harms reporting in randomized control trials of antibiotics for pediatric acute otitis media: a systematic review

Introduction Reporting of harms in randomized control trials is often inconsistent and inadequate. Objective To assess the quality of harms reporting in randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy of antibiotics used to treat pediatric acute otitis media and to investigate whether connections to pharmaceutical companies or the publication of the CONSORT-Harms extension influenced the quality of harms reporting. Study design and setting We considered randomized control trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute otitis media in children aged 0–19. We evaluated the quality of harms reporting using a 19-item checklist addressing the recommendations endorsed in the CONSORT-Harms extension. Results 160 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall quality of reporting relating to harms was low; on average studies adhered to 55.2% of the checklist items on the quality of harms reporting. The reporting of methods relating the measurement of harms was particularly lacking; studies adhered to an average of only 33.2% of the checklist items. The overall quality of reporting did not change after the publication of the CONSORT-Harms extension. The overall quality of reporting did not differ significantly in reports with or without declared connections to pharmaceutical companies (mean quality score of 56.8% vs 52.0%, respectively). Conclusions Harms reporting in pediatric randomized trials, especially the reporting of methods used to collect harms data, remains inadequate.