The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions are often more difficult to conduct, and their quality may lag behind other trials. Objectives: To compare quality domains in trials of surgical interventions, to a previously reported control sample of general medical trials...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sam Adie, Ian A. Harris, Justine M. Naylor, Rajat Mittal
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2017-03-01
Series:Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865416300497
id doaj-962c99b7724f4206a957dd57a0b7565f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-962c99b7724f4206a957dd57a0b7565f2020-11-24T23:12:17ZengElsevierContemporary Clinical Trials Communications2451-86542017-03-015C636610.1016/j.conctc.2016.12.001The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trialsSam Adie0Ian A. Harris1Justine M. Naylor2Rajat Mittal3South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW, AustraliaSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW, AustraliaSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW, AustraliaSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW, AustraliaBackground: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions are often more difficult to conduct, and their quality may lag behind other trials. Objectives: To compare quality domains in trials of surgical interventions, to a previously reported control sample of general medical trials from December 2006. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in May 2009. Study eligibility: English language, full text RCTs, performed on humans that compared a surgical intervention to any other intervention. Study appraisal and synthesis: Records were ordered according to their date of publication. The most recently published trials were assessed first, until the required sample of 400 trials was obtained. The search and data collection were piloted by three authors, and was thereafter collected by one author. Data was checked. Results: Although most quality domains were poorly reported, surgical trials compared favourably to general medical trials. Surgical trials were 24% more likely to have an adequate method of random sequence generation, and 71% more likely to have an adequate method of allocation concealment. However, blinding was 40% less likely to be adequate in surgical trials, and sources of funding were 33% less likely to be reported. Limitations: A single author collected most data. Data was checked and this resulted in few changes. Conclusions: Reporting of most quality domains in surgical intervention trials was better than general medical trials. Blinding was less likely due to the difficulty in conducting sham surgical trials, and reporting of sources of support should improve with adherence to reporting guidelines.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865416300497BiasRandomized controlled trialsSurgical proceduresOperative
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sam Adie
Ian A. Harris
Justine M. Naylor
Rajat Mittal
spellingShingle Sam Adie
Ian A. Harris
Justine M. Naylor
Rajat Mittal
The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Bias
Randomized controlled trials
Surgical procedures
Operative
author_facet Sam Adie
Ian A. Harris
Justine M. Naylor
Rajat Mittal
author_sort Sam Adie
title The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials
title_short The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials
title_full The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed The quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials
title_sort quality of surgical versus non-surgical randomized controlled trials
publisher Elsevier
series Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
issn 2451-8654
publishDate 2017-03-01
description Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions are often more difficult to conduct, and their quality may lag behind other trials. Objectives: To compare quality domains in trials of surgical interventions, to a previously reported control sample of general medical trials from December 2006. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in May 2009. Study eligibility: English language, full text RCTs, performed on humans that compared a surgical intervention to any other intervention. Study appraisal and synthesis: Records were ordered according to their date of publication. The most recently published trials were assessed first, until the required sample of 400 trials was obtained. The search and data collection were piloted by three authors, and was thereafter collected by one author. Data was checked. Results: Although most quality domains were poorly reported, surgical trials compared favourably to general medical trials. Surgical trials were 24% more likely to have an adequate method of random sequence generation, and 71% more likely to have an adequate method of allocation concealment. However, blinding was 40% less likely to be adequate in surgical trials, and sources of funding were 33% less likely to be reported. Limitations: A single author collected most data. Data was checked and this resulted in few changes. Conclusions: Reporting of most quality domains in surgical intervention trials was better than general medical trials. Blinding was less likely due to the difficulty in conducting sham surgical trials, and reporting of sources of support should improve with adherence to reporting guidelines.
topic Bias
Randomized controlled trials
Surgical procedures
Operative
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865416300497
work_keys_str_mv AT samadie thequalityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT ianaharris thequalityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT justinemnaylor thequalityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT rajatmittal thequalityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT samadie qualityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT ianaharris qualityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT justinemnaylor qualityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT rajatmittal qualityofsurgicalversusnonsurgicalrandomizedcontrolledtrials
_version_ 1725601668510253056