SynthesisCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2007
A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials.
Synthesis in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting practices for genomic epidemiology of tuberculosis: a systematic review of the literature using STROME-ID guidelines as a benchmark.The Lancet. Microbe · 2021Pooled it
- The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2013Pooled it
- Empirical progression criteria thresholds for feasibility outcomes in HIV clinical trials: a methodological study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Article
- More pilot trials could plan to use qualitative data: a meta-epidemiological study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Review
- The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Restless Legs Syndrome Based on the CONSORT Statement.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: A systematic review.European stroke journal · 2018Review
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
- Article
- Article
- A look at the potential association between PICOT framing of a research question and the quality of reporting of analgesia RCTs.BMC anesthesiology · 2013Article
- Why perform a priori sample size calculation?Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2013Article
- The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: systematic review protocol.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2013Article
- A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2013Article
- The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement.BMC anesthesiology · 2012Article
- Article
- Practical tips for surgical research: introduction to the series.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSeveral studies have shown that the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medicine is variable and often poor, whereas the quality of those in surgery is unknown. We aimed to assess the quality of reports of RCTs in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery when comparing off- and on-pump techniques.
methodsFrom electronic searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and EMBASE, we identified RCTs published between 2000 and 2005 comparing off- and on-pump CABG. We assessed the report quality, using 35 items from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and 54 additional indicators relevant to CABG surgery. Some of the indicators comprised several small parts, making the maximum possible total score 105. Two authors independently reviewed and assessed the reporting quality of each RCT. The level of agreement was assessed with kappa statistics, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We expressed descriptive analyses as median and interquartile range; we used a generalized estimating equation (GEE) for data analysis.
resultsWe included 50 trials, for a total of 5134 patients. The kappa value was greater than 0.6 for 73 of 105 (70%) indicators. The overall report quality score varied from 35 to 93 of 105. The CONSORT score reporting quality varied from 16 to 39 of 42. The quality of reporting was poor and insufficient for the methods (particularly, the sample size, allocation and blinding subsections), results and discussion sections. With GEE modelling, the reporting quality had a strong association with trial size, publication year, trial location and funding source, but not with the results and type of primary outcome.
conclusionThe quality of the publications' reporting methods, results and discussion sections was suboptimal. It is critical that, in reporting surgical trials, authors follow the CONSORT guidelines as well as consider the surgical factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17897515PMC2386171W141826081What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.