How usual is usual care in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease trials? A systematic review on quality of reporting and validity of comparator interventions

Key Points

• Usual care interventions in COPD trials show significant variability in reporting quality, indicating inconsistency.
• The systematic review assesses 50 trials, revealing that less than 30% provided adequate details on comparator treatments.
• Assessment of reporting quality utilized standard guidelines, emphasizing the need for clearer intervention descriptions.
• Findings suggest improved adherence to reporting standards may enhance the validity of COPD trial outcomes.