Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17060756›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2006

Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better?

Sabapathy P Balasubramanian, Martin Wiener, Zeiad Alshameeri, Ravindranath Tiruvoipati, Diana Elbourne, Malcolm W Reed

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 167 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Measurement and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes in surgery: an opportunity for improvement.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2011
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sabapathy P BalasubramanianAcademic Unit of Surgical Oncology, K Floor, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, S10 2JF, UK. s.p.balasubramanian@sheffield.ac.uk
Martin Wiener
Zeiad Alshameeri
Ravindranath Tiruvoipati
Diana Elbourne
Malcolm W Reed
University of Sheffield · GBGlenfield Hospital · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the quality of reporting of surgical randomized controlled trials published in surgical and general medical journals using Jadad score, allocation concealment, and adherence to CONSORT guidelines and to identify factors associated with good quality. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence about the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Improper methodology and reporting of RCTs can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment effects, which may mislead decision-making in health care at all levels.

methodsInformation was obtained on RCTs published in 6 general surgical and 4 general medical journals in the year 2003. The quality of reporting of RCTs was assessed under masked conditions using allocation concealment, Jadad score, and a CONSORT checklist devised for the purpose.

resultsOf the 69 RCTs analyzed, only 37.7% had a Jadad score of > or =3, and only 13% of the trials clearly explained allocation concealment. The modified CONSORT score of surgical trials reported in medical journals was significantly higher than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001). Overall, the modified CONSORT score was higher in studies with higher author numbers (P = 0.03), multicenter studies (P = 0.002), and studies with a declared funding source (P = 0.022).

conclusionThe overall quality of reporting of surgical RCTs was suboptimal. There is a need for improving awareness of the CONSORT statement among authors, reviewers, and editors of surgical journals and better quality control measures for trial reporting and methodology.

Indexed as

General SurgeryHumansPeer Review, ResearchPublishingQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID17060756
PMCPMC1856614
OpenAlexW1973983211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.