The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review

摘要: Abstract Objectives In order to examine the reporting quality of urological RCTs, initial objectives this study were evaluate degree which RCTs involving surgical techniques (as intervention) published in years 2000–2003 complied with CONSORT statement, and assess trends patterns compliance. Following our findings urology, we extended methodology a number other specialties whether urology could be generalised disciplines. Methods The Royal Society Medicine (RSM) Library was commissioned search Medline Cochrane databases for compliance inclusion criteria below. Additional analyses five (non-urological trials: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic, orthopaedic vascular) also made. For non-urological trials, 15 English language trials (from each specialty) randomly picked from blast conducted by RSM year 2003. given score out 22, reflecting how many 22 items (with item being equal weighting), termed "CONSORT score". Results Urology total 122 RCT abstracts identified met study. From these, 32 excluded as they follow-up studies, involved virtual procedure or cost analysis, leaving 90 across 35 different journals analysed (68.2%, 90/122). average 11.1 indicates that sample do not comply statement. No reported implemented their randomisation process. Only 46% stated had permission an ethics review board, 20% declared sources funding, 14% there any conflicts interest only 1.1% trial registry number. 11.2 obtained. Conclusion Clinical research teams conducting disciplines demonstrate poor We would recommend should registered at outset consider supporting statement have ‘hard-wired' into submission, editorial peer-review processes. Since it seems best researchers are unable produce results enable critically assessed, is need education about its importance all levels training. believe open debate needed on possible role designs, such tracker studies. Whether actually raises question appropriate techniques, leave reader.