Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31786153›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2020

Reporting of key methodological issues in placebo-controlled trials of surgery needs improvement: a systematic review.

Sian Cousins, Natalie S Blencowe, Carmen Tsang, Ava Lorenc, Katy Chalmers, Andrew J Carr, Marion K Campbell, Jonathan A Cook, David J Beard, Jane M Blazeby

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Placebo: a brief updated review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sian CousinsNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: Sian.cousins@bristol.ac.uk.
Natalie S BlencoweNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK; Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Carmen TsangNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Ava LorencNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Katy ChalmersNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Andrew J CarrNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Royal College of Surgeons (England) Surgical Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Marion K CampbellHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Jonathan A CookNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Royal College of Surgeons (England) Surgical Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK.
David J BeardNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Royal College of Surgeons (England) Surgical Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Jane M BlazebyNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Surgical Innovation theme and the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK; Division of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2011-04-016Department of Health NF-SI-0514-10114Medical Research Council MC_PC_17155Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/R015651/1Medical Research Council MR/S001751/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine key methodological considerations for using a placebo intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating invasive procedures, including surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingRCTs comparing an invasive procedure with a placebo were included in this systematic review. Articles published from database inception to December 31, 2017, were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and CENTRAL electronic databases, by handsearching references and expert knowledge. Data on trial characteristics (clinical area, nature of invasive procedure, number of patients and centers) and key methodological (rationale for using placebos, minimization of risk, information provision, offering the treatment intervention to patients randomized to placebo, delivery of cointerventions, and intervention standardization and fidelity) were extracted and summarized descriptively.

resultsOne hundred thirteen articles reporting 96 RCTs were identified. Most were conducted in gastrointestinal surgery (n = 40, 42%) and evaluated minimally invasive procedures (n = 44, 46%). Over two-thirds randomized fewer than 100 patients (n = 65, 68%) and a third were single center (n = 31, 32%). A third (n = 33, 34%) did not report a rationale for using a placebo. Most common strategies to minimize patient risk were operator skill (n = 22, 23%) and independent data monitoring (n = 28, 29%). Provision of patient information regarding placebo use was infrequently reported (n = 11, 11%). Treatment interventions were offered to patients randomized to placebo in 43 trials (45%). Cointerventions were inconsistently reported, but 64 trials (67%) stated that anesthesia was matched between groups. Attempts to standardize interventions and monitor their delivery were reported in n = 7, (7%) and n = 4, (4%) trials, respectively.

conclusionMost placebo-controlled trials in surgery evaluate minor surgical procedures and currently there is inconsistent reporting of key trial methods. There is a need for guidance to optimize the transparency of trial reporting in this area.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementResearch DesignData CollectionHumansPlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Procedures, OperativePlacebosInvasive proceduresMethodologyPlacebo surgerySurgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31786153
PMCPMC7066579
OpenAlexW2989883505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.