Jacob Albersheim1,2, Daniel W Smith1,2, Joseph J Pariser2, Philipp Dahm3,4. 1. Urology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, 112D, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA. 2. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Urology Section, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, 112D, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA. pdahm@umn.edu. 4. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. pdahm@umn.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies examining urethroplasty in reconstructive urological surgery literature. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all urethroplasty-related RCTs examining humans as well as animal models. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Animals in Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to assess reporting quality. Two reviewers performed data abstraction independently and in duplicate. We then generated descriptive statistics including CONSORT (0-25) and ARRIVE (0-20) summary scores using the median and interquartile range. RESULTS: Twenty studies were ultimately included; 14 randomized controlled trials and 6 experimental animal studies. All studies were two-armed, parallel group studies. Median sample sizes (and interquartile range) of the human and animal studies were 48.5 (31.8-53.8) and 18 (15.3-27.5), respectively. The median CONSORT and ARRIVE scores were 10.0 (8.75-12.63) and 7.97 (6.79-8.64), respectively. Human randomized controlled trials did not consistently report the method of allocation concealment (6/14; 42.9%), blinding (2/14; 14.3%), or discuss the generalizability of the results (6/14; 42.9%). Animal studies infrequently reported why a given animal model was used (1/6; 16.7%), how they were allocated to groups (0/6; 0%) or what the experimental primary and secondary outcomes were (0/6; 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Urethroplasty literature is marked by a paucity of both randomized controlled trials and experimental design animal studies. The existing studies are inconsistently reported and are therefore of uncertain methodological quality.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies examining urethroplasty in reconstructive urological surgery literature. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all urethroplasty-related RCTs examining humans as well as animal models. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Animals in Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to assess reporting quality. Two reviewers performed data abstraction independently and in duplicate. We then generated descriptive statistics including CONSORT (0-25) and ARRIVE (0-20) summary scores using the median and interquartile range. RESULTS: Twenty studies were ultimately included; 14 randomized controlled trials and 6 experimental animal studies. All studies were two-armed, parallel group studies. Median sample sizes (and interquartile range) of the human and animal studies were 48.5 (31.8-53.8) and 18 (15.3-27.5), respectively. The median CONSORT and ARRIVE scores were 10.0 (8.75-12.63) and 7.97 (6.79-8.64), respectively. Human randomized controlled trials did not consistently report the method of allocation concealment (6/14; 42.9%), blinding (2/14; 14.3%), or discuss the generalizability of the results (6/14; 42.9%). Animal studies infrequently reported why a given animal model was used (1/6; 16.7%), how they were allocated to groups (0/6; 0%) or what the experimental primary and secondary outcomes were (0/6; 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Urethroplasty literature is marked by a paucity of both randomized controlled trials and experimental design animal studies. The existing studies are inconsistently reported and are therefore of uncertain methodological quality.
Authors: Jun Du; Yundi Zhang; Yiting Dong; Jianchun Duan; Hua Bai; Jie Wang; Jiachen Xu; Zhijie Wang Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 3.500