INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) must comply with the strict rules of design and conduct and their reporting should reflect it. Our aim was to evaluate how the quality of RCT reporting in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has evolved. METHODS: RCTs in POP published between 1997 and 2010 were retrieved through a PubMed search. The quality of reporting was assessed by applying the 2010 revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty-one RCTs were identified for review. The implementation of randomization, recruitment, blinding, outcomes with effect size and precision, trial registration, and full protocol availability were reported in less than half of the trials. Comparing two periods (1997-2006 and 2007-2010), there was no improvement in the quality of reporting for any of the CONSORT criteria. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs in POP are scarce. The quality of reporting is suboptimal in many aspects and has not improved in recent years.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) must comply with the strict rules of design and conduct and their reporting should reflect it. Our aim was to evaluate how the quality of RCT reporting in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has evolved. METHODS: RCTs in POP published between 1997 and 2010 were retrieved through a PubMed search. The quality of reporting was assessed by applying the 2010 revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty-one RCTs were identified for review. The implementation of randomization, recruitment, blinding, outcomes with effect size and precision, trial registration, and full protocol availability were reported in less than half of the trials. Comparing two periods (1997-2006 and 2007-2010), there was no improvement in the quality of reporting for any of the CONSORT criteria. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs in POP are scarce. The quality of reporting is suboptimal in many aspects and has not improved in recent years.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-23
Authors: Charles D Scales; Regina D Norris; Sheri A Keitz; Bercedis L Peterson; Glenn M Preminger; Johannes Vieweg; Philipp Dahm Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alejandro Daniel Treszezamsky; Lauren Rascoff; Azin Shahryarinejad; Michael D Vardy Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 2.894
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
Authors: Philip Toozs-Hobson; Robert Freeman; Matthew Barber; Christopher Maher; Bernard Haylen; Stavros Athanasiou; Steven Swift; Kristene Whitmore; Gamal Ghoniem; Dirk de Ridder Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.894