Operating to remove recurrent colorectal cancer: have we got it right?

Treasure, Tom; Monson, Kathryn; Fiorentino, Francesca; Russell, Christopher

doi:10.1136/bmj.g2085

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that are not fully reported can necessitate additional or futile research that would not be required if the full findings were known. The drive to reduce waste has already been embraced in surgery with initiatives such as the "restoring invisible and abandoned trials" (RIAT) initiative,72 which encourages the publication of all research outcomes, and the IDEAL collaborative,23 which encourages the publication of accurate and transparent intervention development with the aim of avoiding waste through suboptimal reporting or distortion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Well Is Quality Improvement Described in the Perioperative Care Literature? A Systematic Review

Jones

Lees

Martin

et al. 2016

The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Quality improvement (QI) approaches are widely used across health care, but how well they are reported in the academic literature is not clear. A systematic review was conducted to assess the completeness of reporting of QI interventions and techniques in the field of perioperative care. Methods Searches were conducted using Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and PubMed. Two independent reviewers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, which identifies 12 features of interventions that studies should describe (for example, How: the interventions were delivered [e.g., face to face, internet]), When and how much: duration, dose, intensity), to assign scores for each included article. Articles were also scored against a small number of additional criteria relevant to QI. Results The search identified 16,103 abstracts from databases and 19 from other sources. Following review, full-text was obtained for 223 articles, 100 of which met the criteria for inclusion. Completeness of reporting of QI in the perioperative care literature was variable. Only one article was judged fully complete against the 11 TIDieR items used. The mean TIDieR score across the 100 included articles was 6.31 (of a maximum 11). More than a third (35%) of the articles scored 5 or lower. Particularly problematic was reporting of fidelity (absent in 74% of articles) and whether any modifications were made to the intervention (absent in 73% of articles). Conclusions The standard of reporting of quality interventions and QI techniques in surgery is often suboptimal, making it difficult to determine whether an intervention can be replicated and used to deliver a positive effect in another setting. This suggests a need to explore how reporting practices could be improved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Well Is Quality Improvement Described in the Perioperative Care Literature? A Systematic Review

Jones

Lees

Martin

et al. 2016

The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first paper to be published under the RIAT initiative was a trial that was conducted 20 years ago and involved 1447 bowel cancer patients 3 . Treasure et al contacted the trial investigators to ask for their permission to re-analyse the results and publish the trial.…”

Section: Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

It's never too late to publish an abandoned trial

Shiles

Sinclair

2015

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is estimated that half of all trials have never been published which can lead to patients being denied the most effective treatment and being exposed to unnecessary side effects. Furthermore the trial participants have been misinformed since the trial results have not contributed to the care of future patients.However the non-publication of trials is often not due to a deliberate decision to cover up results. Commonly in academia it is due to more understandable reasons such as researchers having busy clinical posts, moving onto other more demanding projects, changing research areas or starting a family. This is called the “file drawer” problem.The examples in this editorial demonstrate that it is possible to go back, even decades later, and make the results available to inform future evidence based medicine. We call on others to look into their “file drawer” for unpublished trials.

show abstract

“…In The BMJ five years ago my colleagues and I questioned the appropriateness of a policy of early detection of colorectal metastases for surgical resection 1. We now have direct evidence from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that any survival advantage from resection of colorectal lung metastases is, in all likelihood, very much smaller than has been assumed 2…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our analysis in 20141 was linked to the publication of the CarcinoEmbryonic Antigen Second Look (CEASL) trial, published 20 years after it was abandoned 4. CEASL recruited patients between 1982 and 1993 and was the first of 16 RCTs to test the effectiveness of intensifying monitoring protocols, as new means of detection were put to the fair test of RCTs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%