Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25214001›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2014

The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review.

A C Yao, A Khajuria, C F Camm, E Edison, R Agha

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A C YaoSchool of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
A KhajuriaSchool of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
C F CammNew College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
E EdisonUniversity College London, London, UK.
R AghaStoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Imperial College London · GBStoke Mandeville Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard for evaluating therapeutic interventions. However, poor reporting clarity can prevent readers from assessing potential bias that can arise from a lack of methodological rigour. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological interventions 2008 (CONSORT NPT) was developed to aid reporting. RCTs in ophthalmic surgery pose particular challenges in study design and implementation. We aim to provide the first assessment of the compliance of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery to the CONSORT NPT statement.

methodIn August 2012, the Medline database was searched for RCTs in ophthalmic surgery reported between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. Results were searched by two authors and relevant papers selected. Papers were scored against the 23-item CONSORT NPT checklist and compared against surrogate markers of paper quality. The CONSORT score was also compared between different RCT designs.

resultsIn all, 186 papers were retrieved. Sixty-five RCTs, involving 5803 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT score was 8.9 out of 23 (39%, range 3.0-14.7, SD 2.49). The least reported items related to the title and abstract (1.6%), reporting intervention adherence (3.1%), and interpretation of results (4.7%). No significant correlation was found between CONSORT score and journal impact factor (R=0.14, P=0.29), number of authors (R=0.01, P=0.93), or whether the RCT used paired-eye, one-eye, or two-eye designs in their randomisation (P=0.97).

conclusionsThe reporting of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery is suboptimal. Further work is needed by trial groups, funding agencies, authors, and journals to improve reporting clarity.

Indexed as

Journal Impact FactorDatabases, FactualGuideline AdherenceHumansOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresPeriodicals as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality Indicators, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25214001
PMCPMC4274293
OpenAlexW2082276367

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.