Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Association between research sponsorship and study outcome in plastic surgery literature. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Quality and retrieval of obstetrical anaesthesia randomized controlled trials. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Handsearching the Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service for Trials.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are accepted as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of clinical interventions but are rarely reported in pediatric surgery. Have RCTs submitted to the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) Annual Congress during the last 5 years been adequately designed and large enough to produce a valid result?
                Abstracts accepted by the Annual BAPS Congress meetings between 1996 and 2000 were examined in collaboration with a senior health services researcher. The quality of the design, methodology, statistical analysis and conclusions, and the adequacy of the sample size were assessed for all identifiable clinical RCTs.
                From 760 accepted abstracts, there were only 9 RCTs (1%) of clinical interventions. In only 4 trials was the relevant primary end-point specified at the outset of the study, and none documented the method of randomization. Only one abstract mentioned blinding with respect to the intervention or outcome measure. Sample sizes were inadequate to detect even large clinical differences. To date, only one of these RCTs has been published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal.
                Clear guidelines exist for the conduct of RCTs, yet compliance with these standards was rarely documented in abstracts of pediatric surgical RCTs presented at BAPS. Sample sizes were inadequate. RCTs in pediatric surgery are difficult to perform, but the specialty would benefit from well-designed, carefully conducted, multicentre, clinical RCTs to advance evidence-based practice.
                Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. The objective was to determine the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) performed by surgeons, published in surgical journals, or comprising a surgical arm and to assess their characteristics and overall quality.
                RCT in general surgery (including gastrointestinal, breast, surgical oncology, vascular, critical care, and trauma) published in 1990 were retrieved by MEDLINE and analyzed to determine the funding agency, type of therapy, area of surgery, journal published, country of origin, number of centers, and whether a surgeon was the principal author. The completeness of the MEDLINE search was compared to a manual search of the literature. All RCT were assessed with Chalmers' qualitative score.
                MEDLINE retrieved 202 surgical RCT (46% of those retrieved by a manual search) with a mean score of 0.40 +/- 0.13. However, surgical RCT were performed by surgeons in only one third of trials, compared surgical therapies in only one quarter of trials, and were published in surgical journals in less than one third of trials. Only 22% of surgical RCT were funded by peer reviewed granting agencies. The strongest variables determining the quality of surgical RCT were the type of therapy tested (p = 0.0001), the type of journal published (p = 0.006), and the area of general surgery (p = 0.007).
                Although surgical RCT are being performed, there are a relatively low proportion and standard of RCT performed by surgeons as the principal author, published in surgical journals, and comparing surgical therapies. This may reflect a lack of expertise by surgeons in clinical trials, lack of funding for surgical trials, methodologic problems peculiar to surgical trials, or a need for adoption of other research designs to assess surgical therapies. Financial and other competing interests have recently received increasing attention. In particular clinical research in plastic surgery attracts for-profit organizations, thus, explaining the increasing number of financial sponsorships. However, research articles often lack sufficient description of study design as well as disclosure of the source of funding. Furthermore, debate exists whether industry funding influences research findings and is leading to pro-industry results. A hand search was conducted identifying all randomized controlled (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) in 4 plastic surgery journals (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, British Journal of Plastic Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery) between 1990 and 2005. Subsequently, the influence of financial support on study outcome was analyzed. A total of 10,476 original articles were analyzed, resulting in the identification of 346 clinical trials which meet the Cochrane criteria for RCTs and CCTs. One hundred eighty-three trials and 163 studies were found to be RCTs and CCTs, respectively. Hereof, only 70 trials (20.2%) reported on grant support. Of these, 42 trials (60%) were supported by the industry. Depending on the topic addressed marked differences were detected regarding grant support. Studies with a focus on reconstructive plastic surgery were supported by the industry and by public institutions in almost equal shares (18 trials vs. 15 trials), whereas aesthetic surgical topics were predominantly funded by the industry (13 trials vs. 6 trials). Industry-funded trials reported more often statistically significant differences between treatment arms (28 trials vs. 16 trials). Authors' conclusions were found to be positively associated with financial competing interests. However, trial funding is rarely declared in the plastic surgery literature. Thus, the quality of reporting needs to be improved to be able to investigate these relationships in greater detail and draw more representative conclusions. 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. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can provide valuable evidence of the efficacy of interventions if they are well-designed, appropriately executed, and adequately reported. Adequate reporting of methodology in surgical RCTs is known to be poor, and adverse-event reporting in surgical research is inconsistent. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a framework to help authors report their findings in a transparent manner. Extensions to the CONSORT statement have been published recently to address deficiencies in adverse-event reporting and in reporting of specific criteria related to nonpharmacologic treatments. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of trial methodology and adverse events in a sample of general surgical RCTs published in high-quality surgical journals using the criteria specified in the CONSORT statements.
                We used impact factor to identify the top three ranked surgical journals in 2004. We then obtained information on all RCTs published in these journals in the 2005 calendar year. We assessed quality of reporting using Jadad score, compared the quality of RCTs from CONSORT-endorsing journals with nonendorsers, and assessed the number of RCTs adequately reporting key generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria.
                Of 42 RCTs analyzed, only 40% (17 of 42) had a Jadad score > or = 3. There was no significant difference in the number of high-quality RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals compared with nonendorsers (p = 0.3). The median percentage of RCTs adequately reporting generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria was 32.5%, 17%, and 36.5%, respectively.
                Quality of reporting of generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria in surgical RCTs is poor. Increased attention to quality of reporting of surgical RCTs is required if studies are to meet published criteria. In order to examine the reporting quality of urological RCTs, the initial objectives of this study were to evaluate the degree to which RCTs involving urological surgical techniques (as the intervention) published in the years 2000-2003 complied with the CONSORT statement, and to assess trends and patterns of compliance. Following our initial findings in urology, we extended the methodology to a number of other specialties to assess whether our findings in urology could be generalised to other surgical disciplines.
                The Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) Library was commissioned to search the Medline and Cochrane databases for RCTs in compliance with the study inclusion criteria below. Additional analyses of five other specialties (non-urological trials: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic, orthopaedic and vascular) were also made. For the non-urological trials, 15 English language trials (from each specialty) were randomly picked from a blast search conducted by the RSM for the year 2003. The RCTs were given a score out of 22, reflecting how many of the 22 CONSORT items were complied with (with each item being given equal weighting), this score was termed the "CONSORT score".
                Urology trials: In total 122 RCT abstracts were identified which met the inclusion criteria for this study. From these, 32 were excluded as they were follow-up studies, involved a virtual procedure or were a cost analysis, leaving 90 RCTs published across 35 different journals which were analysed (68.2%, 90/122). The average score of 11.1 for urological trials indicates that RCTs in our sample do not comply with the CONSORT statement. No trials reported how they implemented their randomisation process. Only 46% of RCTs stated that they had permission from an ethics review board, 20% had declared their sources of funding, 14% stated whether there were any conflicts of interest and only 1.1% stated their trial registry number. For non-urological studies, an average CONSORT score of 11.2 was obtained.
                Clinical research teams conducting RCTs in urology and other surgical disciplines demonstrate poor compliance with the CONSORT statement. We would recommend that trials should be registered at their outset and that urological and other surgical journals to consider supporting the CONSORT statement and to have compliance 'hard-wired' into their submission, editorial and peer-review processes. Since it seems the best researchers are unable to produce an RCT results which enable surgical techniques to be critically assessed, there is a need for education about the CONSORT statement and its importance at all levels of surgical training. We believe that an open debate is needed on the possible role of other research designs, such as tracker studies. Whether this study actually raises the question of how appropriate RCTs are to surgical techniques, we leave to the reader. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are suitable for meta-analysis and systematic reviews provided they are of high quality and are easy to retrieve. We determined these attributes of RCTs in obstetrical anaesthesia in a sample of available journals that are indexed in MEDLINE.
                Randomized controlled trials published between January 1985 and December 1994 in seven anaesthetic and three obstetric journals were identified by a MEDLINE search, and by handsearch of the same journals. Each RCT was assigned a quality score by a blinded rater using a reliable and validated scaled. The quality of each RCT was described and compared over time and by journal. The comparative yield of MEDLINE and hand-search was evaluated.
                Three hundred and forty RCTs were retrieved by MEDLINE and handsearch. Two hundred and twenty seven (65%) were identified by the MEDLINE search and 333 by the handsearch (98%). The median quality score was 3/5. There was no difference in score over time. Anesthesiology had the highest median score, Anaesthesia had the lowest (P < 0.05).
                Care must be taken when reviewing obstetrical anaesthesia research. Strategies in addition to a MEDLINE search must be used to identify RCTs since more than one third were missed using MEDLINE alone. Poor quality RCTs are more likely to be biased in favour of a new treatment. Therefore, to increase the validity of reviews sensitivity analyses based on quality should be done. 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 part of the Cochrane Collaboration's international research endeavour, the authors carried out a handsearch of the Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service from 1948 to 1998, searching for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Five trials were identified, of which three were RCTs and two were CCTs. The first trial was published in 1960. The identified trials were in the fields of dentistry (two trials), gastroenterology, occupational medicine and orthopaedic surgery. Of the five trials, only two had been located previously through a rigorous interrogation of Medline. The three newly identified trials were reported to the UK Cochrane Centre, and details of these three trials were entered into Medline for use by clinicians and investigators in the future.
Limited evidence is now available to support some aspects of surgical practice. Surgeons should be encouraged to perform further RCTs in this field.