The Quality of Randomized Controlled Trial Reporting in Spine Literature

Naunheim, Matthew R.; Walcott, Brian P.; Nahed, Brian V.; Simpson, Andrew K.; Agarwalla, Pankaj K.; Coumans, Jean-Valéry

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181f2aef0

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. [20][21][22][23][24], and SRs published in 2017 had a significantly Author with statistical or epidemiological affiliation (yes versus no) 0⋅99 (0⋅1, 1⋅24) 0⋅937 1⋅08 (0⋅89, 1⋅32) 0⋅429…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials

Chen

et al. 2020

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Well designed and conducted systematic reviews are essential to clinical practice. Surgical intervention is more complex than medical intervention when considering special items related to procedures. There has been no cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials focused on special items relating to surgical interventions. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials published in 2007 and 2017 was undertaken via a PubMed search. Quality of reporting was assessed by the PRISMA checklist, with intervention details containing 27 items. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was used to explore factors in the checklist as indicators of reporting quality.Results: A total of 204 systematic reviews were identified. The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. 20-24), and systematic reviews published in 2017 had a significantly higher median score than those from 2007 (22 (i.q.r. 21-24) versus 20 (17-22); P < 0⋅001). Among the 27 items, 15 were reported adequately and three were reported poorly (in less than 50 per cent of reports). The proportion of other items reported ranged from 54⋅4 to 77⋅9 per cent. In multivariable analysis, systematic reviews published in 2017 (coefficient 0⋅59, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅50 to 0⋅69) and Cochrane reviews (coefficient 0⋅67, 0⋅55 to 0⋅81) were associated with better reporting.Conclusion: The quality of reporting of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials has improved in the past 10 years. Some information relating to specific surgical interventions is, however, still reported poorly.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials

Chen

et al. 2020

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have assessed the quality of reporting regarding surgical trials. Different CONSORT checklists (2003, 2010 versions) have been used, some studies covered all surgical specialties whereas others restricted the analysis to specific topics or areas of surgical practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of reporting in surgical randomized clinical trials

Yu¹,

Li³

et al. 2017

Journal of British Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 This expands on previous work showing similar results in a variety of surgical specialties. 3,4 The paper showed that the publication of CONSORT and its revision did have some impact on reporting overall. When weighted means were used, a significant difference was seen between the pre-CONSORT timepoint and both the post-CONSORT and post-revised CONSORT timepoints.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 This has implications for measuring adherence to CONSORT (which, as the authors point out, there is no validated tool for). The authors and others 4 have used an approach that excludes items which were not directly applicable to that study and then removes that item when considering the total score as a percentage. A simpler and perhaps more appropriate approach used previously assigned a binary yes/ no to each item if it was adequately addressed, 3 which includes explanation if that item was not appropriate to that study.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%