The design and assessment of prospective randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 89, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 858-863

  Boutron, I ^a   Ravaud, P ^a   Nizard, Remy ^b  

^a BICHAT HOSPITAL   (France)

^b HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SELECTION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; ORTHOPEDICS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 34548273102     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19440     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996;347:984-5.
2. Jaeschke R, Sackett DL. Research methods for obtaining primary evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:503-19.
3. Schulz KF. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet 1996;348:596-8.
4. Obremskey WT, Pappas N, Attallah-Wasif E, Tornetta P 3rd, Bhandari M. Level of evidence in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2005;87-A:2632-8.
5. No authors listed. Oxford Centre for Evidence based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp levels (date last accessed 9 July 2007).
6. Weil RJ. The future of surgical research. Plos Med 2004; 1:13.
7. Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudean B, Ravaud P. Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 2003;290:1062-70.
8. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002;324:1448-51.
9. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:1215-18.
10. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1887-92.
11. Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003;327:1459-61.
12. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary?: picking signal from noise. BMJ 2007;334:349-51.
13. Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:487-97.
14. Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, Taji Y, Yamagishi H. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg 2006;244:668-76.
15. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;4:93.
16. Eskelinen A, Remes V, Helenius I, et al. Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register: 4,661 primary replacements followed for 0-22 years. Acta Orthop 2005;76:28-41.
17. Victor J. Do we need a national arthroplasty register? Acta Orthop Belg 2006;72:521-3.
18. Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Furnes O, Havelin LI. Does cement increase the risk of infection in primary total hip arthroplasty: revision rates in 56,275 cemented and uncemented primary THAs followed for 0-16 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2006;77:351-8.
19. Eskelinen A, Remes V, Helenius I, et al. Uncemented total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in young patients: a mid-to long-term follow-up study from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2006;77:57-70.
20. McLeod RS. Issues is surgical randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 1999;23:1210-14.
21. McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, et al. Randomized controlled trials is surgery: issues and problems. Surgery 1996;119:483-6.
22. Seiler CM, Kellmeyer P, Kienle P, et al. Assessment of the ethical review process for non-pharmacological multicentre studies in Germany on the basis of a randomised surgical trial. J Med Ethics 2007;33:113-18.
23. Bhandari M, Pape HC, Giannoudis PV. Issues in the planning and conduct of randomised trials. Injury 2006;37:349-54.
24. Rangel SJ, Efron B, Moss RL. Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research. Ann Surg 2002;236:277-86.
25. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Swiontkowski MF. User's guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use an article about prognosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2001;83-A:1555-64.
26. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.
27. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
28. Jacquier I, Boutron I, Moher D, Roy C, Ravaud P. The reporting of randomized clinical trials using a surgical intervention is in need of immediate improvement: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2006;244:677-83.
29. Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2002;84-A:388-96.
30. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Lochner H, Sprague S, Tornetta P 3rd. Applications of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) in the fracture care literature. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2002;84-A:485-9.
31. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomised trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:663-94.
32. Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, et al. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg 2006;244:663-7.
33. Manterola C, Pineda V, Vial M, Losada H. What is the methodologic quality of human therapy studies in ISI surgical publications? Ann Surg 2006;244:827-32.
34. Ellis C, Hall JL, Khalil A, Hall JC. Evolution of methodological standards in surgical trials. ANZ J Surg 2005;75:874-7.
35. Anyanwu AC, Treasure T. Surgical research revisited: clinical trials in the cardiothoracic surgical literature. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:299-303.
36. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, et al. Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1089-99.
37. Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: a randomized trial. JAMA 2006;296:2441-50.
38. Torgerson DJ, Roland M. What is Zelen's design? BMJ 1998;316:606.
39. Adamson J, Cockaynes S, Puffer S, Torgerson DJ. Review of randomised trials using the post-randomised consent (Zelen's) design. Contemp Clin Trials 2006;27:305-19.
40. Andrew M, Vegh P, Caco C, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of platelet transfusions in thrombocytopenic premature infants. J Pediatr 1993;123:285-91.
41. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:493-501.
42. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. The association of allocation concealment and blinding with estimated treatment effect varies according to type of outcome: a combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Cochrane Colloquium. Abstracts. Dublin, 2006.
43. Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, et al. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2007;89-A:550-8.
44. Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in non-pharmacological than pharmacological trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:543-50.
45. Boutron I, Estellat C, Guittet L, et al. Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2006;3:425.
46. Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C, et al. Reporting methods of blinding in randomized controlled trials assessing non pharmacological treatments. PLos Med 2007;4:61.
47. Moseley JB, O'Malley K, Petersen NJ, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002;347:81-8.
48. Russell I. Evaluation new surgical procedures. BMJ 1995;311:1243-4.
49. Puskas JD, Williams WH, Mahoney EM, et al. Off-pump vs conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: early and 1-year graft patency, cost, and quality-of-life outcomes. JAMA 2004;291:1841-9.
50. Hansson L, Hedner T, Dahlof B. Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study: a novel design for intervention trials. Blood Press 1992;1:113-19.
51. Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Harris J, Gill T. Trials in surgery. Br J Surg 2004;91:6-16.
52. Doro C, Dimick J, Wainess R, Upchurch G, Urquhart A. Hospital volume and inpatient mortality outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2006;21(Suppl 2):10-16.
53. Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE. The effect of hospital-type and operating volume on the survival of hip replacements: a review of 39,505 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1988-1996. Acta Orthop Scand 1999;70:12-18.
54. Jain N, Pietrobon R, Hocker S, et al. The relationship between surgeon and hospital volume and outcome for shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2004;86-A:496-505.
55. Jain NB, Hocker S, Pietrobon R, et al. Total arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: role of provider volume. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:361-7.
56. Kreder HJ, Grosso P, Williams JI, et al. Provider volume and other predictors of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: a population study in Ontario. Can J Surg 2003:46:15-22.
57. Lavernia CJ, Guzman JF. Relationship of surgical volume to short-term mortality, morbidity, and hospital charges in arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995;10:133-40.
58. Lyman S, Jones EC, Bach PB, Peterson MG, Marx RG. The association between hospital volume and total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes. Clin Orthop 2005;432:132-7.
59. Martineau P, Filion KB, Huk OL, et al. Primary hip arthroplasty costs are greater in low-volume than in high-volume Canadian hospitals. Clin Orthop 2005;437:152-6.
60. Mitsuyasu S, Hagihara A, Horiguchi H, Nobutomo K. Relationship between total arthroplasty case volume and patient outcome in an acute care payment system in Japan. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:656-63.
61. Sharkey PF, Shastri S, Teloken MA, et al. Relationship between surgical volume and early outcomes of total hip arthroplasty: do results continue to get better? J Arthroplasty 2004;19:694-9.
62. Soohoo NF, Zingmond DS, Lieberman JR, Ko CY. Primary total knee arthroplasty in California 1991 to 2001: does hospital volume affect outcomes? J Arthroplasty 2006;21:199-205.
63. Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005;330:88.
64. Antolovic D, Kienle P, Knaebel HP, et al. Totally laparoscopic versus conventional ileoanal pouch procedure: design of a single-centre, expertise based randomised controlled trial to compare the laparoscopic and conventional surgical approach in patients undergoing primary elective restorative proctocolectomy. BMC Surg 2006;6:13.
65. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, et al. Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:1095-108.
66. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, et al. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-79.
67. Lee KJ, Thompson SG. Clustering by health professional in individually randomised trials. BMJ 2005;330:142-4.
68. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-6.
69. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:651-4.
70. Berlin JA, Rennis D. Mesuring the quality of trials: the quality of quality scales. JAMA 1999;282:1083-5.
71. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibiolography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
72. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massey-Westropp N, Kumar VS, Grimmer K. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4:22.
73. Harmon JW, Tang DG, Gordon TA, et al. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg 1999;230:404-11.
74. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 1999;230:414-29.
75. Soljak M. Volume of procedures and outcome of treatment. BMJ 2002;325:787-8.
76. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311:376-80.
77. Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P, et al. A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:1233-40.