Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: Can we do better?

Academic Unit of Surgical Oncology, K Floor, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, S10 2JF, UK.
Annals of Surgery (Impact Factor: 8.33). 11/2006; 244(5):663-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000217640.11224.05
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the quality of reporting of surgical randomized controlled trials published in surgical and general medical journals using Jadad score, allocation concealment, and adherence to CONSORT guidelines and to identify factors associated with good quality.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence about the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Improper methodology and reporting of RCTs can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment effects, which may mislead decision-making in health care at all levels.
Information was obtained on RCTs published in 6 general surgical and 4 general medical journals in the year 2003. The quality of reporting of RCTs was assessed under masked conditions using allocation concealment, Jadad score, and a CONSORT checklist devised for the purpose.
Of the 69 RCTs analyzed, only 37.7% had a Jadad score of > or =3, and only 13% of the trials clearly explained allocation concealment. The modified CONSORT score of surgical trials reported in medical journals was significantly higher than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001). Overall, the modified CONSORT score was higher in studies with higher author numbers (P = 0.03), multicenter studies (P = 0.002), and studies with a declared funding source (P = 0.022).
The overall quality of reporting of surgical RCTs was suboptimal. There is a need for improving awareness of the CONSORT statement among authors, reviewers, and editors of surgical journals and better quality control measures for trial reporting and methodology.

Download full-text


Available from: Sabapathy P Balasubramanian, Aug 14, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic appendectomy is widely performed by surgical residents, but its changing indications and outcomes have been poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to examine whether a difference exists in indications and outcomes between laparoscopic appendectomies performed by residents and those performed by experienced surgeons. Between 1999 and 2007, 218 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed and recorded. Data were analyzed to compare operations performed by residents with those by experienced surgeons in terms of indications for surgery and severity of disease. Moreover, laparoscopic appendectomies were thoroughly compared regarding outcomes and complications. The residents had fewer conversions with laparoscopic appendectomy (8% vs 17%, P=0.04), and similar complication rates (12% vs 13%, P=0.16), compared with experienced surgeons. The median operating time was also comparable (67 minutes vs 60 minutes, P=0.23). However, patients operated on by residents had more emergencies (86% vs 70%, P=0.009), included more foreigners (27% vs 15%, P=0.03), and had intermediate to severe diseases, (81 vs 52%, P<0.001) than patients did operated on by experienced surgeons. Surgical residents performed more emergency laparoscopic appendectomies on foreign patients suffering from intermediate to severe diseases compared with experienced surgeons, with comparable surgical outcomes and lower conversion rates.
    JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 01/2009; 13(3):391-7. · 0.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence of cancer-related pain and residual pain in cancer survivors is high. Opioids serve as the gold standard for treating moderate to severe cancer pain. The evaluation of the effectiveness of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain has shown a lack of effectiveness, or rather weak evidence for some of the drugs. In contrast, in cancer pain, opioids are expected to be very effective. Due to the nature of the disease, there is evidence of a paucity of randomized trials investigating opioid effectiveness in cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, the effectiveness of opioids in managing cancer-related pain warrants further evidence-based review beyond randomized trials, including observational studies and case reports. The comprehensive literature search was conducted for the period 1996 through June 2010. Databases for the search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, and, along with reviews and cross references. Methodologic quality assessment of the observational studies managing chronic cancer pain with opioids was conducted utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. Analysis of evidence included 5 levels of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Grading recommendations were based on Guyatt et al's recommendations with 6 levels: 3 in the strong category and 3 in the weak category. This evaluation is of 18 manuscripts considered for inclusion; 7 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria based on AHRQ quality assessment. Level of evidence for opioid therapy in cancer pain was Level II-3, and recommendations were 1C/strong recommendation based on observational studies, which could change based on future evidence. This systematic review of observational studies indicates Level II-3 evidence for effectiveness of opioids in cancer pain therapy, with 1C/strong recommendation based on observational studies, which could change based on future evidence.
    Pain physician 03/2011; 14(2):E85-102. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at
    International Journal of Surgery 11/2010; 148. DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.09.007 · 1.65 Impact Factor
Show more