Prospective randomized comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy and endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. Application of the CONSORT statement to randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release. Postextubation laryngeal edema in adults. Risk factor evaluation and prevention by hydrocortisone. Double-blind comparison of two corticosteroid regimens plus mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine for prevention of acute renal allograft rejection. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.
The introduction of endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy (ENL-DCR) in the early 1990s showed great promise of changing dacryocystorhinostomy into an elegant, minimally invasive procedure from the traditional external dacryocystorhinostomy (EXT-DCR). This prospective, randomized study compares these two operations, their success rates, surgical durations, and postoperative symptoms.
                A total of 64 cases in 61 patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal sac or duct obstruction were divided into 2 subgroups by symptoms (simple epiphora and chronic dacryocystitis). These patients were randomized within both subgroups into 2 operation groups with 32 cases in each group.
                Altogether, 32 EXT-DCRs and 32 ENL-DCRs were performed. The silicone tube was removed at 6 months after surgery. The final follow-up visit was at 1 year after surgery. The patency of the lacrimal passage was investigated by irrigation, and patients were questioned about their symptoms.
                The patency of the lacrimal passage to irrigation and the duration of surgery were measured.
                The success rate at 1 year after surgery was 91% for EXT-DCR and 63% for ENL-DCR after primary surgery. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.016). The surgical duration for ENL-DCR was three times shorter than for EXT-DCR, the average duration being 23 minutes and 78 minutes, respectively (P < 0.0001).
                The EXT-DCR, when compared with ENL-DCR, seems to provide superior operation results in primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology.
                Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality.
                We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006.
                We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.
                There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis.
                Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS.
                The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations. Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.
                A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.
                132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.
                The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard for establishing new therapies in clinical oncology. Here we document changes with time in design, sponsorship, and outcomes of oncology RCTs.
                Reports of RCTs evaluating systemic therapy for breast, colorectal (CRC), and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published 1975 to 2004 in six major journals were reviewed. Two authors abstracted data regarding trial design, results, and conclusions. Conclusions of authors were graded using a 7-point Likert scale. For each study the effect size for the primary end point was converted to a summary measure.
                A total of 321 eligible RCTs were included (48% breast, 24% CRC, 28% NSCLC). Over time, the number and size of RCTs increased considerably. For-profit/mixed sponsorship increased substantially during the study period (4% to 57%; P < .001). There was increasing use of time-to-event measures (39% to 78%) and decreasing use of response rate (54% to 14%) as primary end point (P < .001). Effect size remained stable over the study period. Authors have become more likely to strongly endorse the experimental arm (P = .017). A significant P value for the primary end point and industry sponsorship were each independently associated with endorsement of the experimental agent (odds ratio [OR] = 19.6, 95% CI, 8.9 to 43.1, and OR = 3.5, 95% CI, 1.6 to 7.5, respectively).
                RCTs in oncology have become larger and are more likely to be sponsored by industry. Authors of modern RCTs are more likely to strongly endorse novel therapies. For-profit sponsorship and statistically significant results are independently associated with endorsement of the experimental arm. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was developed by a group of clinical trialists, biostatisticians, epidemiologists and biomedical editors as a means to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of the present study is to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs that compare endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) with open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) using the CONSORT statement.
                A computerized literature search was conducted to identify all RCTs published from January 1989 to November 2004 that compared ECTR with OCTR. Foreign language studies were also included, and translated versions of these studies were obtained. Two investigators independently reviewed each eligible article and determined whether the authors reported on each of the 22 items of the CONSORT statement. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The mean scores for studies published before the introduction of the CONSORT statement and those published afterward were compared. Similarly, a comparison was made between foreign language studies and those published in English.
                Eighteen RCTs comparing ECTR with OCTR met the inclusion criteria. The total scores on the CONSORT checklist ranged from 3 to 20, with a mean score of 9.83+/-3.79 (the maximum possible score was 22). The six studies published in foreign language journals had a statistically significantly lower mean score than the studies published in English language journals (7.00+/-2.76 versus 11.25+/-3.49, respectively; P<0.05). The mean score was higher for studies published after 1996 than for those published in 1996 or earlier (12.14+/-3.80 versus 8.36+/-3.11, respectively; P<0.05).
                The quality of reporting improved over time, but no study met all 22 criteria of the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT scores were higher for studies published after 1996 and for studies published in English language journals. Despite the improvement after 1996, most of these RCTs only reported one-half of the items listed on the CONSORT statement. Future investigators of surgical RCTs should make an effort to comply with the CONSORT checklist. To evaluate the risk factors for postextubation laryngeal stridor and its prevention by hydrocortisone in adult patients.
                Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study.
                Medical and surgical ICU of a tertiary teaching hospital.
                77 consecutive patients of both sexes, who had undergone tracheal intubation for more than 24 h and fulfilled the weaning criteria, were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded if they were less than 15 years of age, had a disease or the surgery of the throat, or had been extubated during the current hospitalization.
                The control group received placebo (normal saline 3 cc) and the experimental group received hydrocortisone 100 mg by intravenous infusion 60 min before extubation.
                Patients were observed 24 h after extubation for symptoms or signs of laryngeal edema or stridor: prolonged inspiration with accessory usage of respiratory muscles or crowing sound with inspiration or reintubation.
                The overall incidence of postextubation stridor was 22% (17/77). Only one patient (1%), who belonged to the control group, needed reintubation. 39% of female patients and 17% of male patients developed stridor. The relative risk of females developing this complication was 2.29. 7/39 of the hydrocortisone group and 10/38 of patients in the control group developed postextubation stridor.
                Hydrocortisone did not significantly reduce the incidence of postextubation laryngeal edema or stridor. From the risk factors evaluated, we were unable to demonstrate a statistical correlation between postextubation stidor and the duration of the intubation, the patient's age, the internal diameter of the endotracheal tube, or the route of intubation. However, female patients were more likely to develop this complication. Renal transplant recipients experience adverse events attributed to corticosteroid therapy.
                This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 6-month, controlled steroid dose-reduction study in renal transplant recipients with an unblinded 6-month follow-up. In the low/stop arm, corticoste. roids were given at half the dosage of control for 3 months from the date of transplantation, and then withdrawn. Both arms received mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine. The primary endpoint was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection at 6 months posttransplantation.
                There were 248 patients in the control group and 252 in the low/stop group. At 6 months the low/stop group had more biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes than the control (23% vs. 14%; P=0.008). At 12 months this increased to 25% vs. 15%. Most rejections were Banff grade I. Twelve-month graft loss was 5% in the low/stop group vs. 4% in the control. At 6 and 12 months serum cholesterol (P<0.01, P<0.01), triglycer. ides (P<0.01, P<0.01), and systolic blood pressure (P<0.001, P<0.001) were lower in the low/stop group. Diastolic pressure was lower (P<0.01) and lumbar spine bone density was greater (P<0.01) in the low/ stop group at 12 months.
                In renal transplant recipients treated with mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine, reduction and early withdrawal of the prophylactic corticosteroid dose is feasible without an unacceptable increase in serious rejection episodes. This is accompanied by a significant reduction of steroid-related adverse events. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions provide the highest level of evidence about efficacy but their value either alone or within a meta-analysis is dependent on its methodological quality. For this reason recent RCTs in organ transplantation were assessed for quality. RCTs published between 2004 and 2006 (n = 332) were assessed, after excluding duplicate and nonEnglish reports. Quality was evaluated using the Jadad score plus allocation concealment and intention to treat analysis. We noted journal type, journal author instructions, funding source, sample size and number and location of study centres. Around one-third of RCTs had a Jadad score of 3 or greater (indication of a methodologically good quality trial) and the other two parameters were satisfied in just over one third. Although the majority of trials were published in speciality journals the quality of those published in general journals was superior. Commercially sponsored trials were of better quality as were multicentre trials in contrast to single centre trials. Overall quality of reporting of RCTs in organ transplantation is poor and as RCTs provide the highest level of evidence in evaluations of interventions there needs to be a concerted effort within the transplant community to improve the standards of RCTs. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent.
The only trial included in the review provides evidence that endonasal DCR has statistically higher risk of failure compared to external DCR. However, this conclusion is limited by paucity of RCTs, small number of participants and lack of clarity of the methodological process. Well conducted RCTs with sufficient power are required to answer the research question.