ArticleBMC anesthesiology2012
The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blinding, sham, and treatment effects in randomized controlled trials for back pain in 2000-2019: A review and meta-analytic approach.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Assessing blinding in trials of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis based on blinding index.Psychiatry research · 2014Pooled it
- Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Review
- Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2019Article
- Quality of pilot trial abstracts in heart failure is suboptimal: a systematic survey.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
- 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
- Quality of abstracts of pilot trials in heart failure: A protocol for a systematic survey.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2017Article
- Quality of abstracts of randomized control trials in five top pain journals: A systematic survey.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2017Article
- Article
- Reporting quality of abstracts of trials published in top five pain journals: a protocol for a systematic survey.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2016Article
- A look at the potential association between PICOT framing of a research question and the quality of reporting of analgesia RCTs.BMC anesthesiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that help inform healthcare and policy decision making. The proper reporting of RCTs is important because it acts as a proxy for health care providers and researchers to appraise the quality of the methodology, conduct and analysis of an RCT. The aims of this study are to analyse the overall quality of reporting in 23 RCTs that were used in a meta-analysis by assessing 3 key methodological items, and to determine factors associated with high quality of reporting. It is hypothesized that studies with larger sample sizes, that have funding reported, that are published in journals with a higher impact factor and that are in journals that have adopted or endorsed the CONSORT statement will be associated with better overall quality of reporting and reporting of key methodological items.
methodsWe systematically reviewed RCTs used within an anesthesiology related post-operative pain management meta-analysis. We included all of the 23 RCTs used, all of which were parallel design that addressed the use of femoral nerve block in improving outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. Data abstraction was done independently by two reviewers. The two main outcomes were: 1) 15 point overall quality of reporting score (OQRS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and 2) 3 point key methodological item score (KMIS) based on allocation concealment, blinding and intention-to-treat analysis.
resultsTwenty-three RCTs were included. The median OQRS was 9.0 (Interquartile Range = 3). A multivariable regression analysis did not show any significant association between OQRS or KMIS and our four predictor variables hypothesized to improve reporting. The direction and magnitude of our results when compared to similar studies suggest that the sample size and impact factor are associated with improved key methodological item reporting.
conclusionsThe quality of reporting of RCTs used within an anesthesia related meta-analysis is poor to moderate. The information gained from this study should be used by journals to register the urgency for RCTs to be clear and transparent in reporting to help make literature accessible and comparable.
Identifiers
What 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.