scholarly journals The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review

Eye ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1341-1349 ◽  
Author(s):  
A C Yao ◽  
A Khajuria ◽  
C F Camm ◽  
E Edison ◽  
R Agha
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ophthalmic Surgery ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Netanya Aarabi Canagarajah ◽  
George James Porter ◽  
Kurchi Mitra ◽  
Timothy Shun Man Chu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Full Design

Abstract Purpose Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of an intervention. However, previous research has shown that RCTs in several surgical specialities are poorly reported, making it difficult to ascertain if various biases have been appropriately minimised. This systematic review assesses the reporting quality of surgical head and neck cancer RCTs. Methods A literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed. Papers were included if they reported RCTs which assessed a surgical technique used to treat or diagnose head and neck cancer published during or after 2011. The CONSORT 2010 checklist was used to evaluate the reporting quality of these trials. Results 41 papers were included. The mean CONSORT score was 16.5/25 (66% adherence) and the scores ranged from 7.5 (30%) to 25. The most common omissions were full trial protocol (found in 14.6%), participant recruitment method (22%) and effect size with a precision estimate for all outcome measures (29.3%). The full design and implementation of the randomisation methods were reported in 6 (14.6%). Papers published in journals which endorsed CONSORT had significantly higher scores (p = 0.02) and the journal impact factor was significantly correlated with CONSORT score (p = 0.01). Conclusion We have identified several pieces of information that are underreported in surgical head and neck cancer RCTs. These omissions make understanding and comparing the methodologies and conclusions of RCTs more difficult. The endorsement of CONSORT by journals improved adherence, suggesting that wider adoption of the checklist may improve reporting.

scholarly journals 1041 A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Surgical Randomised Controlled Trials in Head and Neck Cancer using the CONSORT Statement

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
N A Canagarajah ◽  
G J Porter ◽  
K Mitra ◽  
T S M Chu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of an intervention. However, previous research has shown that surgical specialities poorly report RCTs, making it difficult to ascertain if various biases have been appropriately minimised. This systematic review assesses the reporting quality of surgical head and neck cancer RCTs. Method A literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed. Papers were included if they reported RCTs which assessed a surgical technique used to treat or diagnose head and neck cancer published during or after 2011. Therefore, the CONSORT 2010 checklist was used to evaluate the reporting quality of these trials. Results 41 papers were included. The mean CONSORT score was 16.5/25 (66% adherence) and the scores ranged from 7.5 (30%) to 25. The most common omissions were full trial protocol (found in 14.6%), participant recruitment method (22%) and effect size with precision estimate for all outcome measures (29.3%). The full design and implementation of the randomisation method was reported in 6 (14.6%). Papers published in journals which endorsed CONSORT had significantly higher scores (p = 0.02) and journal impact factor was significantly correlated with CONSORT score (p = 0.01). Conclusions We have identified several pieces of information that are underreported in surgical head and neck cancer RCTs. These omissions make understanding and comparing the methodologies and conclusions of RCTs more difficult. The endorsement of CONSORT by journals improved adherence, suggesting that wider adoption of the checklist may improve reporting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document