SynthesisBJS open2020
Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A mapping review of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of hemorrhoid patients regarding surgical treatment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Serious adverse events, readmission, and mortality after shoulder replacement due to fracture, osteoarthritis, and other indications: a population-based comparison with the general population.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Evidence-based practice usage, knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals: a nationwide survey in the Maldives.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Exploring the MAPPING application to facilitate risk communication and shared decision-making between physicians and patients with gynaecological cancer.BMJ open quality · 2024Observational
- Evidence-Based Surgery: What Can Intra-Operative Images Contribute?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Harms Reporting Is Inadequate in Systematic Reviews Regarding Hip Arthroscopy.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Engineering three-dimensional bone macro-tissues by guided fusion of cell spheroids.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Is it feasible and ethical to randomize patients between surgery and non-surgical treatments for gastrointestinal cancers?Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Availability and use of number needed to treat (NNT) based decision aids for pharmaceutical interventions.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardized reporting methods facilitate comparisons between studies. Reporting of data on benefits and harms of treatments in surgical RCTs should support clinical decision-making. Correct and complete reporting of the outcomes of clinical trials is mandatory to appreciate available evidence and to inform patients properly before asking informed consent.
methodsRCTs published between January 2005 and January 2017 in 15 leading journals comparing a surgical treatment with any other treatment were reviewed systematically. The CONSORT checklist, including the extension for harms, was used to appraise the publications. Beneficial and harmful treatment outcomes, their definitions and their precision measures were extracted.
resultsOf 1200 RCTs screened, 88 trials were included. For the differences in effect size of beneficial outcomes, 68 per cent of the trials reported a P value only but not a 95 per cent confidence interval. For harmful effects, this was 67 per cent. Only five of the 88 trials (6 per cent) reported a number needed to treat, and no study a number needed to harm. Only 61 per cent of the trials reported on both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of the intervention studied in the same paper.
conclusionDespite CONSORT guidelines, current reporting of benefits and harms in surgical trials does not facilitate clear communication of treatment outcomes with patients. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors should ensure proper reporting of treatment benefits and harms in trials.
Indexed as
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.