A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) trials

Farrokhyar, Forough; Chu, Rong; Whitlock, Richard; Thabane, Lehana

doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2005.06.042

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our protocol, we specified the following covariates to investigate associations with completeness of reporting based on prior evidence of their association with completeness of reporting in other diseases: (1) CONSORT endorsement by the journal preceding the publication of the RCT (we established this by searching the CONSORT database online, contacting the journal or searching the journal’s archived guidelines); 11–13,20 (2) year of publication; 7–10 (3) sample size of the RCT; 8,9,14,21 (4) number of recruiting sites (single vs. multicentre); 8,9,14,21 (5) direction and statistical significance of results with reference to aims/hypothesis (positive, neutral or negative); 9,14,15 (6) type of intervention (drug, surgical or other); 15,21 (7) funding source (academic/governmental/charitable vs. commercial vs. other) 14,21 and (8) journal impact factor. 7,8,21 However, we did not use journal impact factor because it is widely acknowledged to be a flawed metric as it is the arithmetic mean of a highly skewed distribution of citations and it is quoted to a higher level of precision (three decimal places) than is warranted by the underlying data, 31 and hence we used a ‘modified journal impact factor’ that uses the median – rather than the mean – number of citations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, studies of RCT reporting have not only demonstrated incomplete reporting in numerous specialties but also modest improvements over time that were often associated with journal endorsement and uptake of CONSORT. 7–20 Concerns about completeness of reporting remain, particularly in journals with low impact factors. 7,21…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 This differs from the findings in other specialties. 14,15 However, it is unclear whether stroke RCT reporting has improved since CONSORT guidelines were released and updated, what factors are associated with better reporting, and whether these associations differ from other diseases. 27…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: A systematic review

Wilson

Burnett

Moher

et al. 2018

European Stroke Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the adherence of stroke randomised controlled trials to Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines and investigate the factors that are associated with completeness of reporting. Method We took a random sample from the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trial Register of transient ischaemic attack or stroke randomised controlled trials, published in English in 1997–2016 inclusive. Two reviewers assessed the published report of the final primary results of stroke randomised controlled trials with a 10-point truncated Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting checklist to investigate adherence over time, univariable associations and independent associations with total Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting score in a multiple linear regression model. Findings In this random sample of 177 stroke randomised controlled trials, the mean score on the truncated Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials checklist was 5.8 (SD 2.2); reporting improved from 1997–2000 (4.9 SD 2.0) to 2001–2009 (5.8 SD 2.1) and to 2010–2016 (6.8 SD 2.1). A higher Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials score was independently associated with publication during epochs following a revision of Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines (p < 0.001), journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guideline at the time of randomised controlled trial publication (p < 0.001) and modified journal impact factor using median citation distribution (p = 0.012). Discussion Stroke randomised controlled trial reporting to Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials standards has improved over time, but could be better. Conclusion Journal endorsement and enforcement of Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines could further improve the reporting of stroke randomised controlled trials. Systematic review registration: Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017072193).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: A systematic review

Wilson

Burnett

Moher

et al. 2018

European Stroke Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methodological studies have played an important role in ensuring that health research is reliable, valid, transparent and replicable. These types of studies may investigate: bias in research, 11 12 quality or completeness of reporting, 13 14 consistency of reporting, 15 methods used, 16 factors associated with reporting practices 17 ; and may provide summaries of other methodological studies 18 and other issues. Methodological studies may also be used to evaluate the uptake of methods over time to investigate whether (and where) practices are improving and allow researchers to make comparisons across different medical areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting of methodological studies in health research: a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMethodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool—the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist—to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies.Methods and analysisWe will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies.Ethics and disseminationThe consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites.RegistrationWe have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq).

show abstract

“…3 Few surgical RCTs report and justify sample size calculations, and insufficient study power is one of the major shortcomings of many surgical trials. 4 For example, systematic reviews of the surgical RCTs have shown that only 28% of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery trials, 4 12% of trauma or orthopedic surgery trials, 5 41% of pancreatico-duodenectomy trials 6 and 25% of laparoscopic surgery trials 7 have reported sample size calculations. The findings from underpowered and poorly designed surgical RCTs may be overvalued because their design grants them unwarranted credibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why perform a priori sample size calculation?

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) trials

Cited by 8 publications

References 67 publications

Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: A systematic review

Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: A systematic review

Reporting of methodological studies in health research: a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC)

Why perform a priori sample size calculation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About