A systematic review of the quality of randomized controlled trials in head and neck oncology surgery

Laryngoscope

Volumn 125, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 146-152

  Carlton, Daniel A ^a   Kocherginsky, Masha ^b   Langerman, Alexander J ^b,c  

^a MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c Operations Research   (United States)

Author keywords

CONSORT statement; Head and neck surgery; Quality; Randomized controlled trials

Indexed keywords

CANCER SURGERY; CHECKLIST; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSORT CHECKLIST; FISHER EXACT TEST; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HEAD AND NECK SURGERY; HUMAN; KRUSKAL WALLIS TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESIDENT; STANDARDIZATION; SURGEON; SURGICAL TRAINING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; METHODOLOGY; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGIC NEOPLASMS; PATIENT CARE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHECKLIST; HUMANS; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGIC NEOPLASMS; PATIENT CARE TEAM; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84919784367     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: 15314995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/lary.24718     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. 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;273:408-412
2. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, For the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2011;9:672-677. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.004. Epub 2011. www.refworks.com
3. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, CONSORT Group. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:295-309
4. 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
5. Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: Can we do better? Ann Surg 2006;244:663-667
6. Ah-See KW, Molony NC. A qualitative assessment of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:460-463
7. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: past, present and future. Med J Aust 1998;169:380-383
8. Wenner DM, Brody BA, Jarman AF, Kolman JM, Wray NP, Ashton CM. Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials? J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:722-730
9. Ridge JA. We show pictures, they show curves. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:1170-1175
10. Weber RS. The head and neck surgeon as clinician-investigator: opportunities and imperatives. The Hayes Martin lecture. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;137:1079-1085
11. Lenfant C. Report of the task forces for the review of the national institutes of health biomedical training programs. October 1989. Available at: https://grants.nih.gov/training/NIH-biomedical-research-review-oct89.pdf
12. Naclerio RM, Saengpanich S, Spainhour M, Baroody FM. The otolaryngology research paradox. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;127:1181-1184
13. Mann M, Tendulkar A, Birger N, Howard C, Ratcliffe MB. National institutes of health funding for surgical research. Ann Surg 2008;247:217-221
14. Witsell DL, Schultz KA, Lee WT, Chiswell K. An analysis of registered clinical trials in otolaryngology from 2007 to 2010: ClinicalTrials.gov. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;149:692-699. Epub 2013
15. Wren JD, Kozak KZ, Johnson KR, Deakyne SJ, Schilling LM, Dellavalle RP. The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO Rep 2007;8:988-991.