Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-08-2014 | Original Article

Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012

Authors: Xiao Chen, Xiao Zhai, Xue Wang, Jiacan Su, Ming Li

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 8/2014

Abstract

Purpose

To elucidate the methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012.

Methods

In this study, we summarized the methodological report of RCTs in three major spine journals, including the Spine Journal, Spine and the European Spine Journal from 2010 to 2012. The methodological reporting quality, including the allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and sample size calculation, was revealed. Number of patients, funding source, type of intervention and country were also retrieved from each trial. The methodological reporting quality was descriptively reported.

Results

Ninety trials were involved and 57.8 % (52/90) reported adequate allocation sequence generation, 46.7 % (42/90) reported adequate allocation concealment, 34.4 % (31/90) reported adequate blinding and 37.8 % (34/90) reported adequate sample size calculation.

Conclusions

This study shows that the methodological reporting quality of RCTs in the spine field needs further improvement.

Available only for authorised users

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312:71–72PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Force USPST (1989) Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. DIANE Publishing, USA

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 273:408–412CrossRef

Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609–613PubMedCrossRef

Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C (2001) Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 135:982–989PubMedCrossRef

http://www.consort-statement.org/

Bai Y, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS (2009) Methodological reporting of randomized clinical trials in major gastroenterology and hepatology journals in 2006. Hepatology 49:2108–2112PubMedCrossRef

Solomon MJ, McLeod RS (1993) Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum 36:43–48PubMedCrossRef

Peron J, Pond GR, Gan HK, Chen EX, Almufti R, Maillet D, You B (2012) Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:982–989PubMedCrossRef

10.

Sandler RS (2001) Reporting randomized controlled trials in gastroenterology: the CONSORT statement. Gastroenterology 121:755PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bai Y, Wu YF, Wang D, Xia Y, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS (2010) Internal validity of randomized controlled trials reported in major gastrointestinal and surgical endoscopy journals in 2008. Surg Endosc 24:1158–1163PubMedCrossRef

12.

Robinson KA, Dickersin K (2002) Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol 31:150–153PubMedCrossRef

13.

Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2008) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. http://www.cochrane.org/handbook

14.

Chalmers TC (1975) Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin N Am 59:1035–1038PubMed

15.

Meakins JL (2006) Evidence-based surgery. Surg Clin N Am 86:1–16 (vii)CrossRef

16.

Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G (2007) The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg 5:413–422PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Lochner H, Sprague S, Tornetta P 3rd (2002) Application of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the Fracture Care Literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:485–489PubMed

18.

McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, Seiler CM, Altman DG, Aronson JK, Barkun JS, Campbell WB, Feldman LS, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Maddern GJ, Marshall JC, McCulloch P, Nicholl J, Strasberg SM, Meakins JL, Ashby D, Black N, Bunker J, Burton M, Campbell M, Chalkidou K, Chalmers I, de Leval M, Deeks J, Grant A, Gray M, Greenhalgh R, Jenicek M, Kehoe S, Lilford R, Littlejohns P, Loke Y, Madhock R, McPherson K, Rothwell P, Summerskill B, Taggart D, Tekkis P, Thompson M, Treasure T, Trohler U, Vandenbroucke J (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374:1097–1104PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

20.

Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr (2009) Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 301:831–841CrossRef

21.

Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 359:515–519PubMedCrossRef

22.

Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359:614–618PubMedCrossRef

23.

Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J, Bland JM (2005) Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ 330:1057–1058PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA J Am Med Assoc 290:921–928CrossRef

25.

Rada G, Schunemann HJ, Labedi N, El-Hachem P, Kairouz VF, Akl EA (2013) Systematic evaluation of the methodology of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer. BMC Cancer 13:76PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F (1989) How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: surgical. Stat Med 8:455–466PubMedCrossRef

27.

Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC (1986) A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 4:942–951

Title: Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012
Authors: Xiao Chen
Xiao Zhai
Xue Wang
Jiacan Su
Ming Li
Publication date: 01-08-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 8/2014
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3283-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2014

Is it feasible to treat unstable hangman’s fracture via the primary standard anterior retropharyngeal approach?

Morphometric subaxial lateral mass evaluation allows for preoperative optimal screw trajectory planning

Blood loss and operative duration using monopolar electrosurgery versus ultrasound scissors for surgical preparation during thoracoscopic ventral spondylodesis: results of a randomized, blinded, controlled trial

Treatment of basilar invagination

Erratum to: A comparison of spinal anesthesia characteristics following intrathecal bupivacaine or levobupivacaine in lumbar disc surgery

Radiographic and clinical assessment on the accuracy and complications of C1 anterior lateral mass and C2 anterior pedicle screw placement in the TARP-III procedure: a study of 106 patients