Article

Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal surgery.

Department of Digestive Surgery, Rouen University Hospital, 76031 Rouen Cedex, France.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.36). 10/2009; 14(1):156-65. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-009-1052-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has become an important outcome measure in surgical trials, questions still remain about the quality of its reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate HRQOL assessment methodology of randomised clinical trials concerning gastrointestinal surgery.
All articles published in the calendar years 2006 and 2007 that purported to assess quality of life as end points or make some conclusion about quality of life were chosen for review from eight general surgical journals and four medical journals. Identified eligible studies were selected and then evaluated on a broad set of predetermined criteria.
Twenty-four published randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs)s with an HRQOL component were identified. Although most trials exhibited good-quality research, some methodological limitations were identified: Only 21% of the studies gave a rationale for selecting a specific HRQOL measure, 46% of the studies failed to report information about the administration of the HRQOL measure, and 37% did not give details on missing data.
Although it is clear that HRQOL is an important end point in surgical RCTs because the information helps to influence treatment recommendations, a number of methodological shortcomings have to be further addressed in future studies.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
109 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Trials assessing the effects of therapies on symptoms, functional capacity, health-related quality of life and other aspects of health status are becoming more common in an era of chronic disease management. Such trials involve instruments for measuring health status whose reliability, validity and responsiveness need to be understood by clinicians and policy-makers in interpreting trial results. Deciding whether a treatment is clinically efficacious requires prior determination, based on empirical evidence, of what constitutes a minimal important difference (MID) between active treatment and control groups in the change in health status between study start and end. This MID should be used to calculate the sample size that will confer adequate power to detect a treatment effect if it truly exists. Many trials assessing health status have major methodological flaws: use of inappropriate or psychometrically unsound measurement instruments, lack of specification of MID, assumption that statistically significant results represent clinically significant treatment effects, and statement of conclusions inconsistent with observed results. This article provides guidance to clinicians in interpreting results of such trials in regard to clinical decision-making.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 05/2011; 65(5):536-46. · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little has been reported in the literature about self-management strategies of chronic conditions in Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs). The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of self-management strategies of chronic conditions in APIs. Twenty-one studies were included in the final review, published between 1997 and 2010. Initially, the Jadad Scoring of Quality of Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials (JSQRRC) was used to determine the quality of RCT studies. The researchers then did a systematic review of each of the RCTs based on the JSQRRC criteria. JSQRRC scores ranged from 8 to 12, M = 9.6. Descriptive analysis indicated cognitive behavioral interventions as an effective treatment methodology for APIs. The results underscore the importance of clarifying the methodological components and reporting of RCTs. Interventions appropriate for APIs using disaggregated ethnic groups are essential to determine specific cultural responses to treatments and outcomes.
    Clinical Nursing Research 08/2011; 20(4):366-403. · 0.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard tool used to evaluate therapeutic interventions. Methodological and ethical aspects should be adequately reported to enable readers to make informed and justified judgments regarding the validity of a trial and the treatment effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological and ethical qualities of randomized clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery and to assess the relationship between these two qualities. All of the articles chosen for review reported on phase III randomized controlled gastrointestinal surgical trials were published in 12 international journals during 2006 and 2007. The eligible studies were identified, selected, and then evaluated based on a broad set of predetermined criteria. The methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and the ethical quality was evaluated using the Berdeu score. The mean Jadad score was 9.7 ± 1.78. The methodological quality was insufficient in 64 RCTs (37.4 %; Jadad score <9). The mean Berdeu score was 0.36 ± 0.08. The journal impact factor, number of randomized patients, and number of centers correlated with the outcome of the Jadad score, and the journal impact factor, industry funding, and year in which the trial began correlated with the outcome of the Berdeu score. Informed consent from patients was not obtained in 7 % (n = 12) of the RCTs, and research ethics committee approval was not mentioned in 14.6 % (n = 25) of the RCTs. The reporting of gastrointestinal surgery RCTs is less than optimal. In our study, the trials of higher methodological quality were more likely to provide information about their ethical aspects. These results suggest the need for more attention to be paid to the conduct of clinical research and the reporting of ethical aspects. The appropriation of the ethical rules by surgeons involved in human clinical trials could improve the methodology and reporting of RCTs in gastrointestinal surgery.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 07/2012; 16(9):1758-67. · 2.36 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
31 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014