Eloise Papet1, Grégoire Moutel2,3, Jean Pinson4, Matthieu Monge4, Edouard Roussel4, Tom Teniere5, Jean-Jacques Tuech4, Valérie Bridoux4. 1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. Eloise.papet@chu-rouen.fr. 2. UNICAEN, Inserm U1086, ANTICIPE, Normandie Universite, Caen, France. 3. Espace Régional de Réflexion Éthique, CHU Caen, Caen, France. 4. Department of Digestive Surgery, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 5. Department of Vascular Surgery, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard tool used to evaluate therapeutic interventions. The published results showed that progress still needs to be made not only from a methodological point of view but also from an ethical point of view. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological and ethical qualities of randomized clinical trials in surgery over the last few years. METHODS: All of the articles chosen for review reported on randomized controlled surgical trials and were published in 10 international journals between 2016 and 2020. Eligible studies were identified, selected, and then evaluated based on a broad set of predetermined criteria. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and ethical quality was evaluated using the Berdeu score. RESULTS: The methodological quality score (Jadad scale) ranged from 5 to 13, with a mean of 10.0 ± 1.54. The methodological quality was insufficient (score ≤ 9) for 162 trials (31.2%). The ethical quality score ranged from 0.25 to 1, with a mean of 0.8 ± 0.11. Fifty-two articles (10%) did not state that informed consent was requested from the participants, and 21 articles (4%) did not report either research ethics committee or institutional committee protocol approval. CONCLUSION: The randomized clinical surgical trials analyzed showed that they had satisfactory methods in only 70% of the cases and that they had respected the fundamental ethical principles in 90% of the cases. However, less than 8% of the studies reported planned interim analysis, prospectively defined stopping rules, and independent monitoring committee.
PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard tool used to evaluate therapeutic interventions. The published results showed that progress still needs to be made not only from a methodological point of view but also from an ethical point of view. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological and ethical qualities of randomized clinical trials in surgery over the last few years. METHODS: All of the articles chosen for review reported on randomized controlled surgical trials and were published in 10 international journals between 2016 and 2020. Eligible studies were identified, selected, and then evaluated based on a broad set of predetermined criteria. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and ethical quality was evaluated using the Berdeu score. RESULTS: The methodological quality score (Jadad scale) ranged from 5 to 13, with a mean of 10.0 ± 1.54. The methodological quality was insufficient (score ≤ 9) for 162 trials (31.2%). The ethical quality score ranged from 0.25 to 1, with a mean of 0.8 ± 0.11. Fifty-two articles (10%) did not state that informed consent was requested from the participants, and 21 articles (4%) did not report either research ethics committee or institutional committee protocol approval. CONCLUSION: The randomized clinical surgical trials analyzed showed that they had satisfactory methods in only 70% of the cases and that they had respected the fundamental ethical principles in 90% of the cases. However, less than 8% of the studies reported planned interim analysis, prospectively defined stopping rules, and independent monitoring committee.
Authors: S Hajibandeh; S Hajibandeh; G A Antoniou; P A Green; M Maden; F Torella Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Amy C Plint; David Moher; Andra Morrison; Kenneth Schulz; Douglas G Altman; Catherine Hill; Isabelle Gaboury Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2006-09-04 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Timothy Y Y Lai; Victoria W Y Wong; Robert F Lam; Andy C O Cheng; Dennis S C Lam; Gabriel M Leung Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Usama Ahmed Ali; Pieter C van der Sluis; Yama Issa; Ibrahim Abou Habaga; Hein G Gooszen; David R Flum; Ale Algra; Marc G Besselink Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 12.969