Special Feature

User Panel

My Panel

My Panel

Bookmark Science Articles

Recent News
Bookmark / Share This Science Site

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

The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review. Research Abstract Details 

Research Abstract Table of Contents

Jump to the:

  • Abstract Text of This Paper
  • Journal Published
  • MeSH Keywords of This Abstract
  • Chemicals and Substances Used in this Paper
  • Grants and Granting Agency of this Research
  • Database Accession Numbers Used in this Paper
  • Related Papers
  • Related Research Tags
  • Rate this Research Paper
  • The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review. Abstract Text:

    riaz aghaRiaz Agha,derek cooperDerek Cooper,gordon muirGordon Muir,riaz aghaRiaz Agha,derek cooperDerek Cooper,gordon muirGordon Muir,riaz aghaRiaz Agha,derek cooperDerek Cooper,gordon muirGordon Muir,

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

    The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review. Publishing Authors By Initials

    r aghaR Agha,d cooperD Cooper,g muirG Muir,r aghaR Agha,d cooperD Cooper,g muirG Muir,r aghaR Agha,d cooperD Cooper,g muirG Muir,

    For similar abstracts research abstracts see: abstracts research

    PUBMED ID PMID:

    MEDLINE DATE:

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

    PUBLICATION TYPE: Journal Article

    Journal: International journal of surgery (London, England)

    VOLUME: 5

    Page Numbers: 413-22

    Journal Abbreviation:

    ISSN: 1743-9159

    DAY: 29

    MONTH: 10

    YEAR: 2007

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

    Number of References:

    LANGUAGE: eng

    NlmUniqueID: 101228232

    The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review. Keywords Mesh Terms:

    KEYWORDS:

    MESH TERMS:

    Chemical & Substance for Abstract: The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review. Information

    Substance Name:

    Registry Number:

    Grant and Affiliation Information for The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review.

    AFFILIATION: International Journal of Surgery, Surgical Associates Ltd, 167 Earls Court Road, London SW5 9RF, UK; King's College London, UK.

    Country: England

    England Research PublicationEngland Research Publication

    AGENCY:

    GRANT:

    ACRONYM:

    MEDLINETA: Int J Surg

    REFSOURCE:

    DATABASENAME:

    ACCESSION NUMBER:

    Number Hits: 0

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

     

    Molecular Station USER Menu

    Welcome to Molecular Station!

    You have to register before you can post on our forums or use our advanced features. Register Now! Its Free and Fast!

    Already registered? Login now below.

    User Name:

    Password:

    Already registered and Forgot your password? Click below to recover it.

    Recover Lost Password

    Join now - it's fast and free!

    Molecular Station is THE largest network of researchers, scientists and science lovers anywhere!

    Research Terms of Usage and Disclaimer
    Home
    Features

    Protocols

    DNA Forum

    Science Forum

    DNA Forum
    Biology Forum

    Science News


    [CaRP] XML error: Invalid document end at line 2

    For more click here:Science News