Trends in worldwide volume and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 258, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 199-207

  Ahmed Ali, Usama ^a,b   Van Der Sluis, Pieter C ^a   Issa, Yama ^b   Habaga, Ibrahim Abou ^a   Gooszen, Hein G ^c   Flum, David R ^d   Algra, Ale ^a   Besselink, Marc G ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

evidence based surgery; level of evidence; methodology of research; randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

AFRICA; ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NORTH AMERICA; PACIFIC ISLANDS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SOUTH AMERICA; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMANS; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; PATIENT DROPOUTS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL;

EID: 84880569661     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31829c7795     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992-1995.
2. Berger VW, Bears JD. When can a clinical trial be called "randomized"? Vaccine. 2003;21:468-472.
3. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-46.
4. Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, et al. Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond. CMAJ. 2004;171:349-350.
5. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276: 637-639.
6. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657-662.
7. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.
8. Kane RL,Wang J, Garrard J. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:241-249.
9. Chang DC, Matsen SL, Simpkins CE.Why should surgeons care about clinical research methodology? J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:827-830.
10. Greenfield ML, Mhyre JM, Mashour GA, et al. Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: A 6-year follow-up. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1916-1921.
11. Lai TY,Wong VW, Lam RF, et al. Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007;14:390-398.
12. Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review. Int J Surg. 2007;5:413-422.
13. Anttila H, Malmivaara A, Kunz R, et al. Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Pediatrics. 2006;117:2222-2230.
14. McCulloch P, Taylor I, SasakoM, et al. Randomised trials in surgery: Problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002;324:1448-1451.
15. Farrokhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, et al. Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2010;251:409-416.
16. Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2009;10:9.
17. Smith R. Publishing surgery. Lancet. 2000;355:849.
18. Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, et al. Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg. 2003;20:263-269.
19. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: Questions, but fewanswers. Lancet. 1996;347:984-985.
20. Panesar SS, Thakrar R, Athanasiou T, et al. Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: Literature review. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:470-472.
21. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals-have we improved? Dis Colon Rect. 1993;36:43-48.
22. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
23. Chapman D. Health-related databases. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;18:148-149.
24. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365:1159-1162.
25. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336:601-605.
26. SchulzKF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias.Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
27. Juni P,Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054-1060.
28. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, et al. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:339-352.
29. Schumm LP, Fisher JS, Thisted RA, et al. Clinical trials in general surgical journals: Are methods better reported? Surgery. 1999;125:41-45.
30. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, et al. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: Comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010;340:c723.
31. Brooke BS, Nathan H, Pawlik TM. Trends in the quality of highly cited surgical research over the past 20 years. Ann Surg. 2009;249:162-167.
32. Wu T, Li Y, Bian Z, et al. Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: How many are randomized? Trials. 2009;10:46.
33. Wang G, Mao B, Xiong ZY, et al. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine: A survey of 13 randomly selected journals from mainland China. Clin Ther. 2007;29:1456-1467.
34. Xu L, Li J, Zhang M, et al. Chinese authors do need CONSORT: Reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journals. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29:727-731.
35. Shore BJ, Nasreddine AY, Kocher MS. Overcoming the funding challenge: The cost of randomized controlled trials in the next decade. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(suppl 1):101-106.
36. Reynolds T. Why randomized surgical oncology trials are so scarce. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1182-1183.
37. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374:1097-1104.
38. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105-1112.
39. Rahbari NN, Diener MK, Fischer L, et al. A concept for trial institutions focussing on randomised controlled trials in surgery. Trials. 2008;9:3.
40. Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Buskens E, et al. Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:651-659.
41. van SantvoortHC, BesselinkMG, Bakker OJ, et al.Astep-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1491-1502.
42. de Boer MT, Klaase JM, Verhoef C, et al. Fibrin sealant for prevention of resection surface-related complications after liver resection: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256:229-234.
43. de Wilde RF, Besselink MG, van der Tweel I, et al. Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality. Br J Surg. 2012;99:404-410.
44. Bien M, Simanton E. Evidence-based medicine at the point of care: Student utilization and faculty implications. S D Med. 2012;65:137-139.
45. Kahlon G, Mansi IA, Banks DE. Educatingmedical students in evidence-based medicine: What we should expect as a starting point for our house officers. South Med J. 2012;105:184-188.
46. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: Hiding who got what. Lancet. 2002;359:696-700.
47. Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Taromi B, et al. Blinding of outcomes in trials of orthopaedic trauma: An opportunity to enhance the validity of clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1026-1033.
48. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185:263-267.
49. Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: Survey of instructions for authors. BMJ. 2005;330:1056-1057.
50. Chen Y, Li J, Ai C, et al. Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals. PLoS One. 2010;5:e11926.
51. Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact factor medical journals: A survey of journal editors and journal "instructions to authors." Trials. 2008;9:20.
52. Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S, et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1232-1236.
53. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, et al. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272:125-128.
54. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: Observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ. 2004;328: 22-24.