Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials: Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example

Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 5.28). 08/2007; 89(8):1693-9. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00858
Source: PubMed


The Oxford Levels of Evidence are now routinely assigned at many orthopaedic journals. One disadvantage of this approach is that study designs with a higher level of evidence may be given greater weight than the overall quality of the study merits. In other words, there is no guarantee that research is scientifically valid simply because a more sophisticated study design was employed. The aim of this study was to review Level-I and II therapeutic studies on lateral epicondylitis to measure variation in quality among the highest-level study designs.
Fifty-four prospective randomized therapeutic trials involving patients with lateral epicondylitis were evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the Oxford Levels of Evidence, a modification of the Coleman Methodology Score (a 0 to 100-point scale), and the revised CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score.
The two reviewers were consistent in their use of the Oxford Levels of Evidence (kappa = 0.73, p < 0.01), the modified Coleman Methodology Score (kappa = 0.73; p < 0.01), and the CONSORT score (kappa = 0.53; p < 0.01). Both reviewers rated the majority of studies as Level II (91% and 94%) and as unsatisfactory according to the Coleman Methodology Score (87% and 89%) and the CONSORT score (62% and 63%). Areas of deficiency included poor descriptions of recruitment (>90% of the trials), power-level calculations (73%), randomization (58%), blinding (90%), and participant flow (50%) as well as inadequate follow-up, sample size, and blinding.
The use of the gold-standard trial design, the prospective randomized therapeutic study (Level-I or II evidence), does not ensure quality research or reporting. Critical analysis of scientific work is important regardless of the study design. Clinical scientists should be familiar with the CONSORT criteria and adhere to them when reporting clinical trials.

6 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: Evaluating the efficacy of the shockwave therapy in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (so called "tennis elbow"). Method: The study was done on a group of 42 patients for the period of 12 months. We use the radial shockwave therapy unit for the treatment, following the recommended protocol for tennis elbow – 4 sessions once a week, 2500 shocks per session, starting with the pressure of 2 bars. The intensity of pain was evaluated by questionnaire with VAS before the treatment, after each treatment and 5 months after the last treatment. Results: The study shows that the pain score (VAS) at rest decreased in average from 4.7 to 0.6 and after 5 months to 0.5. In case of pain provoked by palpation the decrease was from 8.2 to 0.7 and after 5 months to 0.5. Conclusion: The use of the shockwave therapy allowed a decrease of pain and functional impairment in patients with tennis elbow. The SWT is safe and effective and should be considered as a possible therapy for the treatment of patients with tennis elbow.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous published research has shown promising results with flexion splinting post total knee arthroplasty. Before instituting this practice, we conducted a randomised controlled trial to confirm any benefits over splinting in extension. Five patients were recruited into the trial. 5 were excluded. The flexion group consisted of 49 patients who had their knee placed in 70 degrees of flexion over an inactive CPM machine for 24 h post operation. The extension group consisted of 46 patients who were splinted in full extension for the first 24 h post operation. We assessed post-operative day 1 drain volume, haemoglobin and haematocrit, blood transfusions, duration of inpatient stay, range of motion and complications within 6 weeks of surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups among any of the outcomes measured. As such, we have been unable to demonstrate any benefit with splintage in flexion post total knee arthroplasty and have not adopted it as part of our post-operative management.
    The Knee 02/2008; 15(1):15-9. DOI:10.1016/j.knee.2007.09.004 · 1.94 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications