Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study

Background RCTs provide the scientific basis upon which treatment decisions are made. To facilitate critical review, it is important that methods and results are reported transparently. The aim of this study was to explore transparency in surgical RCTs with respect to trial registration, disclosure...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J. A. Helliwell, B. Shelton, H. Mahmood, R. Blanco‐Colino, J. E. Fitzgerald, E. M. Harrison, A. Bhangu, S. J. Chapman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2020-10-01
Series:BJS Open
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50333
id doaj-1fb6bd8be54345399e5406cf3f2fde1b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1fb6bd8be54345399e5406cf3f2fde1b2021-04-02T18:04:57ZengOxford University PressBJS Open2474-98422020-10-014597798410.1002/bjs5.50333Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational studyJ. A. Helliwell0B. Shelton1H. Mahmood2R. Blanco‐Colino3J. E. Fitzgerald4E. M. Harrison5A. Bhangu6S. J. Chapman7Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's University of Leeds Leeds UKDepartment of Anaesthetics Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital London UKChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London UKGeneral Surgery Department Vall d'Hebron University Hospital Barcelona SpainDepartment of Surgery Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust London UKCentre for Medical Informatics Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UKDepartment of Academic Surgery College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Birmingham UKLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's University of Leeds Leeds UKBackground RCTs provide the scientific basis upon which treatment decisions are made. To facilitate critical review, it is important that methods and results are reported transparently. The aim of this study was to explore transparency in surgical RCTs with respect to trial registration, disclosure of funding sources, declarations of investigator conflicts and data‐sharing. Methods This was a cross‐sectional review of published surgical RCTs. Ten high‐impact journals were searched systematically for RCTs published in years 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. Four domains of transparency were explored: trial registration, disclosure of funding, disclosure of investigator conflicts, and a statement relating to data‐sharing. Results Of 611 RCTs, 475 were eligible for analysis. Some 397 RCTs (83.6 per cent) were registered on a trial database, of which 190 (47·9 per cent) had been registered prospectively. Prospective registration increased over time (26 per cent in 2009, 33·0 per cent in 2012, 54 per cent in 2015, and 72·7 per cent in 2018). Funding disclosure was present in 55·0, 65·0, 69·4 and 75·4 per cent of manuscripts respectively. Conflict of interest disclosure was present in 49·5, 89·1, 94·6 and 98·3 per cent of manuscripts across the same time periods. Data‐sharing statements were present in only 15 RCTs (3·2 per cent), 11 of which were published in 2018. Conclusion Trial registration, disclosure of funding and disclosure of investigator conflicts in surgical RCTs have improved markedly over the past 10 years. Disclosure of data‐sharing plans is exceptionally low. This may contribute to research waste and represents a target for improvement.https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50333
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author J. A. Helliwell
B. Shelton
H. Mahmood
R. Blanco‐Colino
J. E. Fitzgerald
E. M. Harrison
A. Bhangu
S. J. Chapman
spellingShingle J. A. Helliwell
B. Shelton
H. Mahmood
R. Blanco‐Colino
J. E. Fitzgerald
E. M. Harrison
A. Bhangu
S. J. Chapman
Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study
BJS Open
author_facet J. A. Helliwell
B. Shelton
H. Mahmood
R. Blanco‐Colino
J. E. Fitzgerald
E. M. Harrison
A. Bhangu
S. J. Chapman
author_sort J. A. Helliwell
title Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study
title_short Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study
title_full Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study
title_fullStr Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study
title_full_unstemmed Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study
title_sort transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross‐sectional observational study
publisher Oxford University Press
series BJS Open
issn 2474-9842
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Background RCTs provide the scientific basis upon which treatment decisions are made. To facilitate critical review, it is important that methods and results are reported transparently. The aim of this study was to explore transparency in surgical RCTs with respect to trial registration, disclosure of funding sources, declarations of investigator conflicts and data‐sharing. Methods This was a cross‐sectional review of published surgical RCTs. Ten high‐impact journals were searched systematically for RCTs published in years 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. Four domains of transparency were explored: trial registration, disclosure of funding, disclosure of investigator conflicts, and a statement relating to data‐sharing. Results Of 611 RCTs, 475 were eligible for analysis. Some 397 RCTs (83.6 per cent) were registered on a trial database, of which 190 (47·9 per cent) had been registered prospectively. Prospective registration increased over time (26 per cent in 2009, 33·0 per cent in 2012, 54 per cent in 2015, and 72·7 per cent in 2018). Funding disclosure was present in 55·0, 65·0, 69·4 and 75·4 per cent of manuscripts respectively. Conflict of interest disclosure was present in 49·5, 89·1, 94·6 and 98·3 per cent of manuscripts across the same time periods. Data‐sharing statements were present in only 15 RCTs (3·2 per cent), 11 of which were published in 2018. Conclusion Trial registration, disclosure of funding and disclosure of investigator conflicts in surgical RCTs have improved markedly over the past 10 years. Disclosure of data‐sharing plans is exceptionally low. This may contribute to research waste and represents a target for improvement.
url https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50333
work_keys_str_mv AT jahelliwell transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
AT bshelton transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
AT hmahmood transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
AT rblancocolino transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
AT jefitzgerald transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
AT emharrison transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
AT abhangu transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
AT sjchapman transparencyinsurgicalrandomizedclinicaltrialscrosssectionalobservationalstudy
_version_ 1721552599948197888