Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement

FAIR reporting of clinical trials for public health practice

The number of clinical trials is rapidly growing, and automation of literature processing is becoming desirable but unresolved. Our purpose was to assess and increase the readiness of clinical trial reports for supporting automated retrieval and implementation in public health practice. We searched the Medline database for a random sample of clinical trials of HIV/AIDS management with likely relevance to public health in Africa. Five authors assessed trial reports for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed quality based on the FAIR principles of scientific data management (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable). Subsequently, we categorized reported results in terms of outcomes and essentials of implementation. A sample of 96 trial reports was selected. Information about the tested intervention that is essential for practical implementation was largely missing, including personnel resources needed 32·3% (.95 CI: 22·9-41·6); material/supplies needed 33·3% (.95 CI: 23·9-42·8); major equipment/building investment 42·8% (CI: 33·8-53·7); methods of educating providers 53·1% (CI: 43·1-63·4); and methods of educating the community 27·1% (CI: 18·2-36·0). Overall, 65% of studies measured health/biologic outcomes, among them, only a fraction showed any positive effects. Several specific design elements were identified that frequently make clinical trials unreal and their results unusable. To sort and interpret clinical trial results easier and faster, a new reporting structure, a practice- and retrieval-oriented trial outline with numeric outcomes (PROTON) table was developed and illustrated. Many clinical trials are either inconsequential by design or report incomprehensible results. According to the latest expectations of FAIR scientific data management, all clinical trial reports should include a consistent and practical impact-oriented table of clinical trial results.

Statistical Power of Randomized Controlled Trials in Trauma Surgery

BACKGROUND

Our purpose was to conduct a bibliometric study investigating the prevalence of underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in trauma surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A medical librarian conducted a search of RCTs in trauma published from 2000 to 2021. Data extracted included study type, sample size calculation, and power analyses. Post hoc calculations were performed using a power of 80% and an alpha level of 0.05. A CONSORT checklist was then tabulated from each study as well as a fragility index for studies with statistical significance.

RESULTS

In total 187 RCTs from multiple continents and 60 journals were examined. A total of 133 (71%) were found to have "positive" findings consistent with their hypothesis. When evaluating their methods, 51.3% of articles did not report how they calculated their intended sample size. Of those that did, 25 (27%) did not meet their target enrollment. When examining post hoc power, 46%, 57%, and 65% were adequately powered to detect small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. Only 11% of RCTs had complete adherence with CONSORT reporting guidelines and the average CONSORT score was 19 out of 25. For positive superiority trials with binary outcomes, the fragility index median (interquartile range) was 2 (2 to 8).

CONCLUSIONS

A concerningly large proportion of recently published RCTs in trauma surgery do not report a priori sample size calculations, do not meet enrollment targets, and are not adequately powered to detect even large effect sizes. There exists opportunity for improvement of trauma surgery study design, conduct, and reporting.

The transparency of reporting 'harms' encountered with the surgically assisted acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement in the published randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Surgical-assisted accelerated orthodontics (SAAO) has become very popular recently. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the extent to which researchers adhere to Item 19 (harms) of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the published studies in the field of SAAO. In addition, the study evaluated the possible association between harm reporting and the human development index (HDI) of the recruited research sample country, CiteScore-based quartile (CSBQ) of the publishing journal, invasiveness of the surgical intervention (ISI), and the type of orthodontic tooth movement (TOTM). Moreover, it aimed to summarize the different possible harms and complications that maybe encountered in the course of SAAO.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searching of six databases was conducted for SAAO-related English RCTs published between January 2000 and April 2022. For the RCTs that did not report harms, information was sought by contacting the corresponding authors. Descriptive statistics of the evaluated variables were performed. The association between 'harm reporting' and the HDI of the research team, the BDRQ of the publication journal, the ISI, and the TOTM were investigated. Binary logistic regression was used, and the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) of the evaluated variables were obtained. Moreover, the risk of bias of the included RCTs was assessed using the RoB2 tool.

RESULTS

Among the 91 included RCTs, 54 RCTs (59.3%) did not adhere to reporting harm associated with the SAAO. The non-adherence was significantly associated with the ISI (OR 0.16; CI 0.03-0.73; p < 0.018) for invasive methods compared with minimally invasive ones). There was a significant positive correlation between harm reporting and both the CSBQ of the publishing journal and the HDI of the recruited research sample country (p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). On the contrary, a non-significant association was found between harm reporting and the type of OTM (p = 0.695). The incidence of harms associated with SAAO was approximately 17.5%.

LIMITATIONS

Assessment was restricted to English RCTs related to SAAO.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The adherence to reporting harms in the field of SAAO was deficient. Efforts should be made by authors, peer reviewers, and editors to improve compliance with the CONSORT guidelines regarding harms reporting. Additionally, there is a wide spectrum of harms that could be associated with SAAO that the practitioner should pay attention to and alert the patient to the possibility of their occurrence.

Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria.

METHODS

In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria.

RESULTS

Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (r = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.

Postoperative outcomes of sigmoid colon vaginoplasty for vaginal agenesis: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH) is a rare disorder in women that is associated with vaginal agenesis and hypoplasia or loss of uterus. In this study we aim to study the outcome of sigmoid colon vaginoplasty among MRKH patients with vaginal agenesis.

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial study, from 2017 to 2021, 39 patients were reported to our center with vaginal agenesis as a result of MRKH. Patients were treated with sigmoid colon vaginoplasty and postoperative outcomes such as Female sexual function index (FSFI), depth of vaginal cavity, and postoperative complications were evaluated.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 32.3 ± 2.3 years. 18 patients (46.2%) were diagnosed using MRI whereas 21 patients (53.8%) were diagnosed with exploratory laparoscopy. The mean vaginal depth before and after the surgery was 2.8 cm and 17.3 cm, respectively. One patient (2.6%) developed fistula, and peritonitis due to perforation of the vagina, 26 months after surgery, respectively. Of 10 patients who were sexually active after the surgery, all of these patients were sexually satisfied. The FSFI was 32 ± 3.9.

Conclusion

The postoperative complications after sigmoid colon vaginoplasty were minimum and all the sexually active patients were sexually active. This method appears to be an effective for surgical treatment of vaginal agenesis.

•

Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH) is a rare disorder in women.

•

That is associated with vaginal agenesis and hypoplasia or loss of uterus.

•

Sigmoid colon vaginoplasty were minimum and all the sexually active patients were sexually active.

•

This method appears to be an effective for surgical treatment of vaginal agenesis.

An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Academy Orthopaedic Surgery Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Randomized control trials (RCTs) serve as evidentiary support for recommendations underpinning clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with the goal of optimizing patient care. A knowledge gap exists within scientific literature when evaluating the quality of RCTs used as evidence in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) pediatric CPGs. We aim to evaluate the reporting quality and risk of bias in RCTs underlying AAOS Pediatric CPG recommendations.

METHODS

We located all AAOS Pediatric CPGs. We then extracted all RCTs from the CPG reference sections. All included RCTs were evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0). Descriptive statistics were recorded, and bivariate analysis was used to account for variance in CONSORT scores. A Mann-Whitney U test was completed to compare CONSORT studies published before and after 2010.

RESULTS

Three CPGs and 23 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Mean CONSORT adherence was 69.8% (21.6/31). The lowest adhered to CONSORT items were 10, 23, and 24, while items 2a, 13a, and 18 displayed the highest adherence. Ten RCTs (43.5%, 10/23) had "low" risk of bias, 5 RCTs (21.7%, 5/23) were of "some concerns," and 8 RCTs (34.8%, 8/23) received a "high" designation for risk of bias. There were no statistically significant associations in the bivariate regression analysis or Mann-Whitney U test.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that CONSORT adherence within RCTs used as evidence in AAOS Pediatric CPGs is substandard-relying on evidence that, in some cases, is >20 years old. Many of the RCTs cited as supporting evidence have a "high" risk of bias. Altogether, these CPGs may need to be updated or expanded to include more recent evidence relevant to pediatric orthopaedic surgery.

Evaluation of reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials regarding patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement for abstracts

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts regarding patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to analyze the factors influencing the quality.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs on patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT statement for abstracts was used to evaluate the reporting quality of RCT abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 53 RCT abstracts were included. The CONSORT statement for abstracts showed that the average reporting rate of all items was 50.2%. The items with a lower reporting quality were mainly the trial design and the details of randomization and blinding (<10%). The mean overall adherence score across all studies was 8.68 ± 2.69 (range 4-13.5). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the higher reporting scores were associated with higher journal impact factor (P < 0.01), international collaboration (P = 0.04), and structured abstract format (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Although many RCTs on patients with COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall quality of reporting in the included RCT abstracts was suboptimal, thus diminishing their potential usefulness, and this may mislead clinical decision-making. In order to improve the reporting quality, it is necessary to promote and actively apply the CONSORT statement for abstracts.

Adherence to the CONSORT statement and extension for nonpharmacological treatments in randomized controlled trials of bariatric surgery: A systematic survey

Reporting is critical for establishing the value of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study evaluated the adherence of bariatric surgery RCT reporting to the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010 and its 2017 extension for non-pharmacologic treatments (NPT extension). We identified all RCTs comparing bariatric surgery with conservational therapy or alternative bariatric surgery up to June 30, 2020. Reporting quality was assessed using criteria developed from the CONSORT statement and the NPT extension and scored as a percentage. The factors associated with reporting quality were explored by univariate and multivariate analysis. In total, 102 RCTs of bariatric surgery were included. The median scores according to the CONSORT statement and NPT extension were 63.3 and 26.8 of a maximum possible 100, respectively. Two-thirds of NPT extension items were reported in less than 25% of the RCTs. The median score improved over time for the CONSORT statement but not the NPT extension. A higher CONSORT score was associated with publication in core clinical journals, protocol registration, and funding. No factors associated with the NPT extension score were identified. Substantial efforts are warranted from authors, journals, registration platforms, and funders to overcome the flaws in the reporting of bariatric surgery RCTs.

Biomechanically superior treatments do not translate into improved outcomes in randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Significant time and resources are devoted to conducting orthopaedic biomechanics research; however, it is not known how these studies relate to their subsequent clinical studies. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether biomechanically superior treatments were associated with improved clinical outcomes as determined by analogous randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to find RCTs that tested a research question based on a prior biomechanical study. PubMed and SCOPUS databases were queried for orthopaedic randomized controlled trials, and full text articles were reviewed to find RCTs which cited biomechanical studies with analogous comparison groups. A random-effects multi-level logistic regression model was conducted examining the association between RCT outcome and biomechanics outcome, adjusting for multiple outcomes nested within study.

RESULTS

In total, 20,261 articles were reviewed yielding 21 RCTs citing a total of 43 analogous biomechanical studies. In 7 instances (16.2%), the RCT and a cited biomechanical study showed concordant results (i.e. the superior treatment in the RCT was also the superior construct in the biomechanical study). RCT outcome was not associated with biomechanical outcome (β = -1.50, standard error = 0.78, p = .05).

CONCLUSION

This study assessed 21 orthopaedic RCTs with 43 corresponding biomechanical studies and found no association between superior biomechanical properties of a given orthopaedic treatment and improved clinical outcomes. Favourable biomechanical properties alone should not be the primary reason for selecting one treatment over another. Furthermore, RCTs based on biomechanical studies should be carefully designed to maximize the chance of providing clinically relevant insights.

PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009 [1], was developed in an attempt to increase the clarity, transparency, quality and value of these reports [2]. The 27-item checklist and four-phase flow diagram have become the hallmark of academic rigour in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, having been cited by over 60,000 papers [3]. These are frequently endorsed by journals in their 'Instructions to Authors' [4]. Developments in the methodology and terminology used when conducting systematic reviews [5], alongside the identification of limitations responsible for poor adherence, such as the use of ambiguous wording [6], have warranted an update to the PRISMA statement. The PRISMA 2020 statement, therefore, is intended to reflect this recent evolution in the identification, selection, appraisal and synthesis of research [7]. Here, we present an interpretive analysis of the updated statement, with a view towards encouraging its adoption by both journals and authors in the pursuit of advancing evidence-based medicine.

A Review of Adherence and Predictors of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials

The statement on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) ensures transparency in the reporting of randomized trials. However, it is unclear if the statement has led to improvement in the quality of reporting of tuberculosis (TB) vaccine trials. We explored the quality of reporting of TB vaccine trials according to the latest version of the CONSORT statement, released in 2010. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in August 2019. We conducted screening, study selection, and data extraction in duplicate; and resolved differences through discussion. We assessed reporting to be adequate if trials reported at least 75% of the CONSORT 2010 items. We conducted a trend analysis to assess if there was improvement in reporting over time. We also used logistic regression to assess factors associated with adequate reporting. We included 124 trials in the analyses. The mean proportion of adherence was 67.3% (95% confidence interval 64.4% to 70.1%), with only 46 (37%) trials having adequate reporting. There was a significant improvement in the quality of reporting over time (p < 0.0001). Trials published in journals with impact factors between 10 and 20 were more likely to have adequate reporting (odds ratio 9.4; 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 67.8), compared to lower-impact-factor journals. Despite advances over time, the reporting of TB vaccine trials is still inadequate and requires improvement.

An assessment of adherence to CARE reporting standards by case reports published in European Heart Journal – Case Reports in 2018

Background

Case reports are subject to significant variation in their content, and the absence of pertinent case details can limit their benefit to the medical community. To aid this, a reporting standard (CARE) has been developed. Case reports published in European Heart Journal – Case reports (EHJ-CR) are subject to specific checks by editors to confirm compliance with the CARE reporting standard. However, a degree to which case reports published by EHJ-CR comply with the CARE reporting standards has not been established.

Methods

Case reports published in EHJ-CR during 2018 were reviewed for compliance with the CARE reporting standards. Two authors assessed each article for compliance with each of the 31 criteria.

Results

In 2018, 130 case reports/series were published by EHJ-CR. The median number of CARE criteria achieved by each article was 21 (interquartile range 21–25) out of 31. CARE criteria with the highest adherence were timeline inclusion, a clear and well-referenced discussion, and declaration of competing interests, all present in 100% of articles. In contrast, some aspects were poorly adhered to including patient perspective, and details of funding sources. There was no difference in overall compliance with aspects of the CARE standard between diagnostic and interventional case reports. However, lower compliance was seen for the discussion of diagnostic challenges in interventional studies (19%), when compared to diagnostic studies (44%). The continent of authorship and month submitted did not affect CARE adherence.

Conclusions

There was good compliance with the CARE reporting standards by case reports published in EHJ-CR. A number of specific areas for improvement have been identified which will be considered by the editorial board of EHJ-CR.

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

BACKGROUND

Methodological studies - studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports - play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

MAIN BODY

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a "frequently asked questions" format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

CONCLUSION

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVE

To measure the frequency of adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and test potential factors associated with adequacy of methods and reporting.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews. Time series describes the proportion of RCTs using adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting. A multinomial logit model tests potential factors associated with methods and reporting, including funding source, first author affiliation, clinical trial registration status, study novelty, team characteristics, technology and geography.

DATA

Risk of bias assessments for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting, for each RCT, were mapped to bibliometric and funding data.

OUTCOMES

Risk of bias on six methodological dimensions and RCT-level overall assessment of adequate methods, inadequate methods or poor reporting.

RESULTS

This study analysed 20 571 RCTs. 5.7% of RCTs used adequate methods (N=1173). 59.3% used inadequate methods (N=12 190) and 35.0% were poorly reported (N=7208). The proportion of poorly reported RCTs decreased from 42.5% in 1990 to 30.2% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using adequate methods increased from 2.6% in 1990 to 10.3% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods increased from 54.9% in 1990 to 59.5% in 2015. Industry funding, top pharmaceutical company affiliation, trial registration, larger authorship teams, international teams and drug trials were associated with a greater likelihood of using adequate methods. National Institutes of Health funding and university prestige were not.

CONCLUSION

Even though reporting has improved since 1990, the proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods is high (59.3%) and increasing, potentially slowing progress and contributing to the reproducibility crisis. Stronger incentives for the use of adequate methods are needed.

Assessing the Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Craniofacial Surgery Journals With the CONSORT Statement

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are gold standard assessments for healthcare interventions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was published to maximize RCT reporting transparency. The authors conducted a systematic review to assess current compliance of RCTs published within craniofacial surgery with the CONSORT statement.

METHODS

The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Report 2016 was consulted to identify craniofacial surgery journals. PubMed was used to search for recent RCTs published within the 5 journals identified. Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed data extraction. The primary outcome was compliance of each RCT with the CONSORT statement. Secondary outcomes were the pathology and interventions examined, impact factor, multi-versus-single center, number of authors, and publication date.

RESULTS

Eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, across which a median of 56% (range 33%-94%) applicable CONSORT items were reported. The 5 least reported items were: trial design (3a); registration number and name of trial registry (23); who generated random allocation sequences, enrolled participants, and assigned participants to interventions (10); sample size determination (7a); mentioning "randomized trial" in the title (1a).

CONCLUSION

The compliance of craniofacial surgery RCTs with the CONSORT statement requires improvement. Areas in need are identified, and methods to improve reporting transparency, are discussed.

Comparison of the Quality of Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Both Nursing and Medical Journals: Adherence to the CONSORT Statement

BACKGROUND

Nursing care should be based on scientific evidence. However, studies must be performed rigorously with accurate reporting for their findings to be applicable to practice. Since the body of scientific nursing literature is broad, the quality and validity of its findings should be regularly controlled and verified to ensure their application and their practical impact.

PURPOSE

To compare reporting quality of pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles in nursing and medical journals.

METHODS

Randomly selected articles were reviewed and scored to assess the number of CONSORT items that were adequately reported, generating a CONSORT score. The CONSORT scores for 28 items were compared between the two journal types.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The CONSORT scores by journal type were not significantly different: (19.2 [16.2; 22] for medical journals and 19.5 [16.1; 21.5] for nursing journals, p = .77). The reporting of CONSORT items was poor for both journal types. However, there were two significant differences: item 19 (Declaration of all important harm or unintended effects, p = .0006) and item 23 (Registration number of the study, p = .0003), were reported more often in medical journals. The adherence of journals to the CONSORT statement and large sample size was associated with better quality of the reporting of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on reporting quality, nursing studies have the same scientific credibility and rigor as medical studies in the pediatric field.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

The findings of this study could help researchers improve the reporting of their studies and highlight the importance of reporting quality for future knowledge transfer and practical use. The quality of research and its reporting is necessary to improve knowledge transfer into practice.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Development of a German fracture register to assess current fracture care and improve treatment quality: A feasibility study

Continuous evaluation of current treatment methods is crucial in orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Existing fracture registries substantially contribute to improving fracture care and quality of life in trauma patients.

Currently there is no universal German fracture register recording the patient-centred outcome of non-surgical as well as surgical fracture treatment in all anatomical regions.

Conclusions regarding nationwide fracture treatment and quality of care are only significant to a limited extent.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:474–477. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160086.

A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results

BACKGROUND

Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time.

RESULTS

In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R ² = 0.02, p = 0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R ² = 0.01, p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.

An assessment of the compliance of Randomised controlled trials published in craniofacial surgery journals with the CONSORT statement: A systematic review protocol

Introduction

The role of clinical trials in medicine is expanding, particularly in surgery. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard evidence for high-quality assessment of healthcare interventions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance has been published to maximise RCT reporting transparency. This paper outlines the study protocol for a systematic review that will assess the current compliance of RCTs published within craniofacial surgery with the CONSORT criteria. The aims are to identify areas where reporting can be improved to ensure craniofacial surgery is guided by high-quality evidence.

Methods and analysis

This protocol is compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Craniofacial surgery RCTs will be identified by searching within craniofacial surgery journals. Five journals from the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Report 2016 included 'cranio' in their title and were included. MEDLINE PubMed will be used to search all RCTs published in these journals. The search strategy is described within this protocol. It will be limited to articles written in English, conducted on humans, and published in the last five years. Two independent researchers will assess each study for inclusion and will perform the data extraction. The researchers will assess compliance of each RCT with the 25-item CONSORT Statement checklist as the primary outcome. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or third author arbitration. Secondary outcomes to be extracted include the pathology and interventions examined, and indices of RCT quality. The systematic review will be compliant with PRISMA guidelines. The review has been registered a priori with the Registry of Systematic Reviews/meta-analyses (UIN: reviewregistry219).

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic review will be conducted in line with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions. The intent is to publish in a peer-reviewed journal and present the data at relevant conferences.

Outcome Measures Used in Arthroplasty Trials: Systematic Review of the 2008 and 2013 Literature

OBJECTIVE

Previously published literature assessing the reporting of outcome measures used in joint replacement randomized controlled trials (RCT) has revealed disappointing results. It remains unknown whether international initiatives have led to any improvement in the quality of reporting and/or a reduction in the heterogeneity of outcome measures used. Our objective was to systematically assess and compare primary outcome measures and the risk of bias in joint replacement RCT published in 2008 and 2013.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for RCT investigating adult patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. Two authors independently identified eligible trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS

Seventy RCT (30 in 2008, 40 in 2013) met the eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference in the number of trials judged to be at low overall risk of bias (n = 6, 20%) in 2008 compared with 2013 [6 (15%); chi-square = 0.302, p = 0.75]. Significantly more trials published in 2008 did not specify a primary outcome measure (n = 25, 83%) compared with 18 trials (45%) in 2013 (chi-square = 10.6316, p = 0.001). When specified, there was significant heterogeneity in the measures used to assess primary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

While less than a quarter of trials published in both 2008 and 2013 were judged to be at low overall risk of bias, significantly more trials published in 2013 specified a primary outcome. Although this might represent a temporal trend toward improvement, the overall frequency of primary outcome reporting and the wide heterogeneity in primary outcomes reported remain suboptimal.

A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Journal abstracts including those reporting systematic reviews (SR) should contain sufficiently clear and accurate information for adequate comprehension and interpretation. The aim was to compare the quality of reporting of abstracts of SRs including meta-analysis published in high-impact general medicine journals before and after publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for abstracts (PRISMA-A) released in April 2013.

METHODS

SRs including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in 2012, 2014, and 2015 in top-tier general medicine journals were searched in PubMed. Data was selected and extracted by two reviewers based on the PRISMA-A guidelines which recommend to include 12 items. The primary outcome was the adjusted mean number of items reported; the secondary outcome was the reporting of each item and factors associated with a better reporting. Adjustment was made for abstract word count and format, number of authors, PRISMA endorsement, and publication on behalf of a group.

RESULTS

We included 84 abstracts from 2012, 59 from 2014, and 61 from 2015. The mean number of items reported in 2015 (7.5; standard deviation [SD] 1.6) and in 2014 (6.8; SD 1.6) differed and did not differ from that reported in 2012 (7.2; SD 1.7), respectively; adjusted mean difference: 0.9 (95 % CI 0.4; 1.3) and -0.1 (95 % CI -0.6; 0.4). From 2012 to 2014, the quality of reporting was in regression for "strengths and limitations of evidence" and "funding"; contrariwise, it remained unchanged for the others items. Between 2012 and 2015, the quality of reporting rose up for "description of the effect", "synthesis of results", "interpretation", and "registration"; but decreased for "strengths and limitations of evidence"; it remained unchanged for the other items. The overall better reporting was associated with abstracts structured in the 8-headings format in 2014 and abstracts with a word count <300 in 2014 and 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

Not surprisingly, the quality of reporting did not improve in 2014 and suboptimally improved in 2015. There is still room for improvement to meet the standards of PRISMA-A guidelines. Stricter adherence to these guidelines by authors, reviewers, and journal editors is highly warranted and will surely contribute to a better reporting.

Abstracts reporting of HIV/AIDS randomized controlled trials in general medicine and infectious diseases journals: completeness to date and improvement in the quality since CONSORT extension for abstracts

Background

Sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. We aimed at comparing reporting quality of RCTs in HIV/AIDS medicine before and after the publication of the 2008 CONSORT extension for abstracts and to investigate factors associated with better reporting quality.

Methods

We searched PubMed/Medline for HIV/AIDS RCTs published between 2006–07 (Pre-CONSORT) and 2014–15 (Post-CONSORT) in 40 leading general medicine and infectious diseases journals. Two investigators extracted data and scored abstracts. The primary outcome was the adjusted mean number of items reported among the 17 required. Proportions of abstracts reporting each of 17 items were considered as secondary outcome. The adjustment was done for journal field, CONSORT endorsement, abstract format, type of intervention, journal impact factor and authorship. This study received no funding.

Results

The adjusted mean number of reported items was 7.2 (95 % CI 6.6–7.7) in pre-CONSORT (n = 159) and 7.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 7.3–8.4) in post-CONSORT (n = 153) (mean difference 0.7; 95 % CI 0.1–1.2). Journal high impact factor (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.16; 95 % CI 1.83–2.54), abstract with 13 authors or more (1.39; 95 % CI 1.07–1.79) and non-pharmacological intervention (1.19; 95 % CI 1.03–1.37) were independent factors for better reporting quality. There were significant improvements in reporting on participants, randomization, outcome results, registration and funding; regression for author contact; and no change for other items: title, design, interventions, objective, primary outcome, blinding, number randomized, recruitment, number analyzed, harms and conclusions.

Conclusions

After the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts, the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts in general medicine and infectious diseases journals has suboptimally improved. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for abstract are needed to improve the reporting quality of HIV/AIDS RCT abstracts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0243-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic review of the methodological and reporting quality of case series in surgery

BACKGROUND

Case series are an important and common study type. No guideline exists for reporting case series and there is evidence of key data being missed from such reports. The first step in the process of developing a methodologically sound reporting guideline is a systematic review of literature relevant to the reporting deficiencies of case series.

METHODS

A systematic review of methodological and reporting quality in surgical case series was performed. The electronic search strategy was developed by an information specialist and included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation index, from the start of indexing to 5 November 2014. Independent screening, eligibility assessments and data extraction were performed. Included articles were then analysed for five areas of deficiency: failure to use standardized definitions, missing or selective data (including the omission of whole cases or important variables), transparency or incomplete reporting, whether alternative study designs were considered, and other issues.

RESULTS

Database searching identified 2205 records. Through the process of screening and eligibility assessments, 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Frequencies of methodological and reporting issues identified were: failure to use standardized definitions (57 per cent), missing or selective data (66 per cent), transparency or incomplete reporting (70 per cent), whether alternative study designs were considered (11 per cent) and other issues (52 per cent).

CONCLUSION

The methodological and reporting quality of surgical case series needs improvement. The data indicate that evidence-based guidelines for the conduct and reporting of case series may be useful.

Improved Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Urologic Literature

BACKGROUND

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have the potential to provide high-quality evidence to inform questions of therapy and prevention, but this potential is contingent on the use of appropriate methods and transparent reporting.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the quality of urology RCT reporting and identify trends over time.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

All RCTs published in four leading urology journals in 2013 were identified and compared to a prior analysis of studies from 1996 and 2004. Two reviewers abstracted data based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A summary reporting score (range: 0-22) for each study was determined. Mean overall scores for 1996, 2004, and 2013 were compared using analysis of variance. We used χ² to compare the reporting frequency of individual criteria.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Mean CONSORT scores for RCTs were 15.6±2.0 in 2013 (n=82), 12.0±0.3 in 2004 (n=87), and 10.2±0.3 in 1996 (n=65); p<0.01. Key deficiencies remain in reporting methods of allocation concealment and group assignment (selection bias), and blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (performance and detection bias). Study limitations are potential reviewer bias resulting from lack of journal deidentification and the relatively low number of studies reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a substantial improvement in reporting quality of RCTs in urology since CONSORT. Some methodological criteria remain underreported, and increased efforts are necessary to further this improvement.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment decisions are often based on data from randomized controlled trials. We looked at whether these trials in urology are transparent in reporting their design and conduct using a framework known as the CONSORT criteria and found significant improvements over time. Some areas of deficiency remain, and our paper aimed to highlight these drawbacks to promote continued high-quality research.

Evidence-Based Plastic Surgery: Its Rise, Importance, and a Practical Guide

There is a perfect storm developing in 21st century healthcare; rising complexity and patient expectations in the context of fiscal restraint. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) may be the best-kept secret in dealing with the "storm." Such an approach prefers management pathways that deliver better outcomes at less relative cost. In this article, the rise of EBM, its significance, a guide to practicing it, and its future in the field of plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery are presented.

Initial Nutritional Assessment of Infants With Cleft Lip and/or Palate: Interventions and Return to Birth Weight

OBJECTIVE

To assess and quantify cleft team practices with regard to nutritional support in the neonatal period Design :  Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary pediatric hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred consecutive newborn patients with a diagnosis of cleft lip and/or cleft palate between 2009 and 2012.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Birth weight, cleft type, initial cleft team weight measurements, initial feeding practices, recommended nutritional interventions, and follow-up nutritional assessments.

RESULTS

All patients in the study were evaluated by a registered dietitian and an occupational feeding therapist. Average birth weight and average age at the first cleft team visit were similar for each cleft type: cleft lip (CL), cleft lip and palate (CLP), and cleft palate (CP). The calculated age (in days) for return to birth weight was significantly different between cleft types: CL = 13.58 days, CLP = 15.88 days, and CP = 21.93 days. Exclusive use of breast milk was 50% for patients with CL, 30.3% for patients with CLP, and 21.4% for patients with CP. Detailed nutritional interventions were made for 31 patients at the first visit: two with CL, 14 with CLP, and 15 with CP.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct differences were seen in neonatal weight gain between cleft types. There was significantly greater total weight gain for patients with CL at their first visit and significantly slower return to birth weight for patients with isolated CP. Patients with CL required far fewer interventions at the initial assessment and were more likely to be provided breast milk exclusively or in combination with formula. Infants with CP were far less likely to receive any breast milk. Patients with CLP and CP required frequent nutritional interventions.

A systematic review protocol for reporting deficiencies within surgical case series

INTRODUCTION

Case series are an important and common study type in surgical literature. There is evidence that key data are excluded from published case series, and currently no reporting guideline exists for case series. There is, therefore, the potential to change practices and improve the reporting of case series. Reporting guidelines have been shown to be efficacious in raising the bar for reporting quality. We present our protocol for the first stage of guideline development--a systematic review of previously identified deficiencies in how surgical case series are reported.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Electronic searches will be conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index, from the start of indexing until 5 November 2014. The electronic search strategy was developed with an information specialist. Two independent researchers will identify articles for inclusion, specifically those that describe reporting deficiencies within surgical case series. Data will be extracted to specifically focus on the deficiencies of reporting. These will be categorised according to their type, and other identified issues will also be presented. Data will be presented with descriptive statistics to determine frequently missing types of data, and the commonest reporting issues tabulated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The authors hope to disseminate the findings as widely as possible, irrespective of results, as these will add to the wider corpora of information on this subject. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at a wide range of national and international conferences. Ultimately, this will inform a Delphi process for the development of a surgical case series reporting guideline.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

CRD42015016145.

Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of 'instructions to authors'

AIMS

Guidance has been published on how best to report randomised controlled trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - CONSORT) and systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis - PRISMA). In 2011, we reported a low rate of enforcement by surgery journals for submitted manuscripts to conform to these guidelines. The aim of this follow-up study is to establish whether there has been any improvement.

METHODS

We studied the 134 surgery journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report. The 'Instructions to Authors' were scrutinised for inclusion of the following guidance: CONSORT, PRISMA, clinical trial registration and systematic review registration.

RESULTS

Compared to 2011, there has been an improvement in the endorsement of reporting guidance in journals' 'Instructions to Authors' in 2014, as follows: trial registration (42% vs 33%), CONSORT (42% vs 30%) and PRISMA (19% vs 10%, all p < 0.001). As in 2011, journals with a higher impact were more likely to adopt trial registration (p < 0.001), CONSORT (p < 0.001) and PRISMA (p = 0.002). Journals with editorial offices in the UK were more likely to endorse guidance compared to those outside the UK (p < 0.05). Only one journal mentioned registration for systematic reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery journals are presently more likely to require submitted manuscripts to follow published reporting guidance compared to three years ago. However, overall concordance rates are still low, and an improvement is required to help enhance the quality of reporting - and ultimately the conduct - of randomised control trials and systematic reviews in surgery.