Literature DB >> 17060756

Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better?

Sabapathy P Balasubramanian1, Martin Wiener, Zeiad Alshameeri, Ravindranath Tiruvoipati, Diana Elbourne, Malcolm W Reed.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of reporting of surgical randomized controlled trials published in surgical and general medical journals using Jadad score, allocation concealment, and adherence to CONSORT guidelines and to identify factors associated with good quality. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence about the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Improper methodology and reporting of RCTs can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment effects, which may mislead decision-making in health care at all levels.
METHODS: Information was obtained on RCTs published in 6 general surgical and 4 general medical journals in the year 2003. The quality of reporting of RCTs was assessed under masked conditions using allocation concealment, Jadad score, and a CONSORT checklist devised for the purpose.
RESULTS: Of the 69 RCTs analyzed, only 37.7% had a Jadad score of > or =3, and only 13% of the trials clearly explained allocation concealment. The modified CONSORT score of surgical trials reported in medical journals was significantly higher than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001). Overall, the modified CONSORT score was higher in studies with higher author numbers (P = 0.03), multicenter studies (P = 0.002), and studies with a declared funding source (P = 0.022).
CONCLUSION: The overall quality of reporting of surgical RCTs was suboptimal. There is a need for improving awareness of the CONSORT statement among authors, reviewers, and editors of surgical journals and better quality control measures for trial reporting and methodology.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17060756      PMCID: PMC1856614          DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000217640.11224.05

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  24 in total

1.  Randomized controlled trials: "it ain't necessarily so".

Authors:  D A Grimes
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option?

Authors:  Y J Lee; J H Ellenberg; D G Hirtz; K B Nelson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-08-19

4.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.

Authors:  C Begg; M Cho; S Eastwood; R Horton; D Moher; I Olkin; R Pitkin; D Rennie; K F Schulz; D Simel; D F Stroup
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-08-28       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.

Authors:  D Moher; A R Jadad; G Nichol; M Penman; P Tugwell; S Walsh
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1995-02

6.  Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology.

Authors:  K F Schulz; D A Grimes; D G Altman; R J Hayes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-23

7.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable.

Authors:  J P Kassirer; E W Campion
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-07-13       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Determining the reporting quality of RCTs in clinical pharmacology.

Authors:  Edward Mills; Yoon K Loke; Ping Wu; Victor M Montori; Daniel Perri; David Moher; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Intention to treat--who should use ITT?

Authors:  J A Lewis; D Machin
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  49 in total

Review 1.  Quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature: a focused analysis on randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  David Hui; Joseph Arthur; Shalini Dalal; Eduardo Bruera
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Methodological and ethical quality of randomized controlled clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery.

Authors:  Valérie Bridoux; Grégoire Moutel; Horace Roman; Babak Kianifard; Francis Michot; Christian Herve; Jean-Jacques Tuech
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Randomized, controlled trials: is there a role for them in surgery?

Authors:  Robin McLeod
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Clinical trials: ethics and quality.

Authors:  S P Balasubramanian
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  Clinical research methodology I: introduction to randomized trials.

Authors:  Lillian S Kao; Jon E Tyson; Martin L Blakely; Kevin P Lally
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  The IDEAL recommendations and urological innovation.

Authors:  Peter McCulloch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Association between framing of the research question using the PICOT format and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Lorena P Rios; Chenglin Ye; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-02-05       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (1997-2007): An Assessment of Reporting Quality with a CONSORT- and STRICTA-Based Instrument.

Authors:  Richard Hammerschlag; Ryan Milley; Agatha Colbert; Jeffrey Weih; Beth Yohalem-Ilsley; Scott Mist; Mikel Aickin
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2010-10-03       Impact factor: 2.629

9.  Checklists to improve the quality of the orthopaedic literature.

Authors:  Raman Mundi; Harman Chaudhry; Ishu Singh; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  How good is the orthopaedic literature?

Authors:  Harman Chaudhry; Raman Mundi; Ishu Singh; Thomas A Einhorn; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.