Observational studyBJS open2020
Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Investigation of research quality and transparency in neurosurgery through the utilization of open science practices.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Data Sharing and Reanalyses Among Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Surgical Journals Before and After Adoption of a Data Availability and Reproducibility Policy.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Transparency of COVID-19-Related Research in Dental Journals.Frontiers in oral health · 2022Article
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 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRCTs provide the scientific basis upon which treatment decisions are made. To facilitate critical review, it is important that methods and results are reported transparently. The aim of this study was to explore transparency in surgical RCTs with respect to trial registration, disclosure of funding sources, declarations of investigator conflicts and data-sharing.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional review of published surgical RCTs. Ten high-impact journals were searched systematically for RCTs published in years 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. Four domains of transparency were explored: trial registration, disclosure of funding, disclosure of investigator conflicts, and a statement relating to data-sharing.
resultsOf 611 RCTs, 475 were eligible for analysis. Some 397 RCTs (83.6 per cent) were registered on a trial database, of which 190 (47·9 per cent) had been registered prospectively. Prospective registration increased over time (26 per cent in 2009, 33·0 per cent in 2012, 54 per cent in 2015, and 72·7 per cent in 2018). Funding disclosure was present in 55·0, 65·0, 69·4 and 75·4 per cent of manuscripts respectively. Conflict of interest disclosure was present in 49·5, 89·1, 94·6 and 98·3 per cent of manuscripts across the same time periods. Data-sharing statements were present in only 15 RCTs (3·2 per cent), 11 of which were published in 2018.
conclusionTrial registration, disclosure of funding and disclosure of investigator conflicts in surgical RCTs have improved markedly over the past 10 years. Disclosure of data-sharing plans is exceptionally low. This may contribute to research waste and represents a target for improvement.
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.