A C Yao1, A Khajuria1, C F Camm2, E Edison3, R Agha4. 1. School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 2. New College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. University College London, London, UK. 4. Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard for evaluating therapeutic interventions. However, poor reporting clarity can prevent readers from assessing potential bias that can arise from a lack of methodological rigour. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological interventions 2008 (CONSORT NPT) was developed to aid reporting. RCTs in ophthalmic surgery pose particular challenges in study design and implementation. We aim to provide the first assessment of the compliance of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery to the CONSORT NPT statement. METHOD: In August 2012, the Medline database was searched for RCTs in ophthalmic surgery reported between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. Results were searched by two authors and relevant papers selected. Papers were scored against the 23-item CONSORT NPT checklist and compared against surrogate markers of paper quality. The CONSORT score was also compared between different RCT designs. RESULTS: In all, 186 papers were retrieved. Sixty-five RCTs, involving 5803 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT score was 8.9 out of 23 (39%, range 3.0-14.7, SD 2.49). The least reported items related to the title and abstract (1.6%), reporting intervention adherence (3.1%), and interpretation of results (4.7%). No significant correlation was found between CONSORT score and journal impact factor (R=0.14, P=0.29), number of authors (R=0.01, P=0.93), or whether the RCT used paired-eye, one-eye, or two-eye designs in their randomisation (P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery is suboptimal. Further work is needed by trial groups, funding agencies, authors, and journals to improve reporting clarity.
PURPOSE: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard for evaluating therapeutic interventions. However, poor reporting clarity can prevent readers from assessing potential bias that can arise from a lack of methodological rigour. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological interventions 2008 (CONSORT NPT) was developed to aid reporting. RCTs in ophthalmic surgery pose particular challenges in study design and implementation. We aim to provide the first assessment of the compliance of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery to the CONSORT NPT statement. METHOD: In August 2012, the Medline database was searched for RCTs in ophthalmic surgery reported between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. Results were searched by two authors and relevant papers selected. Papers were scored against the 23-item CONSORT NPT checklist and compared against surrogate markers of paper quality. The CONSORT score was also compared between different RCT designs. RESULTS: In all, 186 papers were retrieved. Sixty-five RCTs, involving 5803 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT score was 8.9 out of 23 (39%, range 3.0-14.7, SD 2.49). The least reported items related to the title and abstract (1.6%), reporting intervention adherence (3.1%), and interpretation of results (4.7%). No significant correlation was found between CONSORT score and journal impact factor (R=0.14, P=0.29), number of authors (R=0.01, P=0.93), or whether the RCT used paired-eye, one-eye, or two-eye designs in their randomisation (P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery is suboptimal. Further work is needed by trial groups, funding agencies, authors, and journals to improve reporting clarity.
Authors: Guowei Li; Meha Bhatt; Mei Wang; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Zainab Samaan; Lehana Thabane Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alex Thabane; Mark R Phillips; Tien Y Wong; Lehana Thabane; Mohit Bhandari; Varun Chaudhary Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Enrico Martin; Ivo S Muskens; Joeky T Senders; Aislyn C DiRisio; Aditya V Karhade; Hasan A Zaidi; Wouter A Moojen; Wilco C Peul; Timothy R Smith; Marike L D Broekman Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2019-02-23 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Catherine Hu; Jie Yi Wang; Zoe El Helou; Muhammad Taaha Hassan; Zheng Jing Hu; Gerhard Fusch; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Salhab El Helou; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2021-06
Authors: Abigail Stevely; Munyaradzi Dimairo; Susan Todd; Steven A Julious; Jonathan Nicholl; Daniel Hind; Cindy L Cooper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240