Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 9/2012

01-09-2012 | Original Article

Methodological and Ethical Quality of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials in Gastrointestinal Surgery

Authors: Valérie Bridoux, Grégoire Moutel, Horace Roman, Babak Kianifard, Francis Michot, Christian Herve, Jean-Jacques Tuech

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 9/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard tool used to evaluate therapeutic interventions. Methodological and ethical aspects should be adequately reported to enable readers to make informed and justified judgments regarding the validity of a trial and the treatment effectiveness.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological and ethical qualities of randomized clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery and to assess the relationship between these two qualities.

Study Design

All of the articles chosen for review reported on phase III randomized controlled gastrointestinal surgical trials were published in 12 international journals during 2006 and 2007. The eligible studies were identified, selected, and then evaluated based on a broad set of predetermined criteria. The methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and the ethical quality was evaluated using the Berdeu score.

Results

The mean Jadad score was 9.7 ± 1.78. The methodological quality was insufficient in 64 RCTs (37.4 %; Jadad score <9). The mean Berdeu score was 0.36 ± 0.08. The journal impact factor, number of randomized patients, and number of centers correlated with the outcome of the Jadad score, and the journal impact factor, industry funding, and year in which the trial began correlated with the outcome of the Berdeu score. Informed consent from patients was not obtained in 7 % (n = 12) of the RCTs, and research ethics committee approval was not mentioned in 14.6 % (n = 25) of the RCTs.

Conclusions

The reporting of gastrointestinal surgery RCTs is less than optimal. In our study, the trials of higher methodological quality were more likely to provide information about their ethical aspects. These results suggest the need for more attention to be paid to the conduct of clinical research and the reporting of ethical aspects. The appropriation of the ethical rules by surgeons involved in human clinical trials could improve the methodology and reporting of RCTs in gastrointestinal surgery.
Literature
1.
Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet. 1996 Apr 13;347(9007):984–5.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. Bmj. 2010;340:c723.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2001 Apr 18;285(15):1992–5.CrossRef
4.
Altman DG. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. Bmj. 1996 Sep 7;313(7057):570–1.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Ruiz-Canela M, de Irala-Estevez J, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Gomez-Gracia E, Fernandez-Crehuet J. Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2001 Jun;27(3):172–6.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. Bmj. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167–70.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):125–8.CrossRef
8.
Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, Hayes RJ. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. Bmj. 1996 Mar 23;312(7033):742–4.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Annals of surgery. 2006 Nov;244(5):663–7.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Junker CA. Adherence to published standards of reporting: a comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):247–9.CrossRef
11.
Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):122–4.CrossRef
12.
Kiehna EN, Starke RM, Pouratian N, Dumont AS. Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2011 Feb;114(2):280–5.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS. Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery. 1994 Jun;115(6):707–12.PubMed
14.
Rennie D, Yank V. Disclosure to the reader of institutional review board approval and informed consent. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1997 Mar 19;277(11):922–3.CrossRef
15.
Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Gomez-Gracia E, Fernandez-Crehuet J. Informed consent and approval by institutional review boards in published reports on clinical trials. The New England journal of medicine. 1999 Apr 8;340(14):1114–5.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Tuech JJ, Pessaux P, Moutel G, Thoma V, Schraub S, Herve C. Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in phase III cancer trials. J Med Ethics. 2005 May;31(5):251–5.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Thoma V, Bridoux V, Lefebure B, Wattiez A, Nisand I, Tuech JJ. Methodological and ethical quality in phase III--breast cancer trials. Med Law. 2009 Dec;28(4):637–48.PubMed
18.
Yank V, Rennie D. Reporting of informed consent and ethics committee approval in clinical trials. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2835–8.CrossRef
19.
Rothenberger LG, Henschel AD, Schrey D, Becker A, Boos J. Methodological and ethical aspects of randomized controlled clinical trials in minors with malignant diseases. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011 Oct;57(4):599–605.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bauchner H, Sharfstein J. Failure to report ethical approval in child health research: review of published papers. Bmj. 2001 Aug 11;323(7308):318–9.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Myles PS, Tan N. Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading anesthesia journals. Anesthesiology. 2003 Nov;99(5):1209–13.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Boutron I, Ravaud P, Nizard R. The design and assessment of prospective randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Jul;89(7):858–63.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Lee JS, Urschel DM, Urschel JD. Is general thoracic surgical practice evidence based? Ann Thorac Surg. 2000 Aug;70(2):429–31.PubMedCrossRef
24.
McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. Bmj. 2002 Jun 15;324(7351):1448–51.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1–12.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Wang G, Mao B, Xiong ZY, Fan T, Chen XD, Wang L, et al. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine: a survey of 13 randomly selected journals from mainland China. Clin Ther. 2007 Jul;29(7):1456–67.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Tiruvoipati R, Balasubramanian SP, Atturu G, Peek GJ, Elbourne D. Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: the way forward. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006 Aug;132(2):233–40.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Bridoux V, Moutel G, Lefebure B, Scotte M, Michot F, Herve C, et al. Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010 Jan;14(1):156–65.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, Ben-Porat L, Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr. 2002;2:3.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Meningaud JP, Berdeu D, Moutel G, Herve C. Ethical assessment of clinical research publications. Med Law. 2001;20(4):595–603.PubMed
31.
Lai TY, Wong VW, Lam RF, Cheng AC, Lam DS, Leung GM. Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007 Nov–Dec;14(6): 390–8.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Jacquier I, Boutron I, Moher D, Roy C, Ravaud P. The reporting of randomized clinical trials using a surgical intervention is in need of immediate improvement: a systematic review. Annals of surgery. 2006 Nov;244(5):677–83.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609–13.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. Bmj. 2008 Mar 15;336(7644):601–5.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J, Bland JM. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. Bmj. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1057–8.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Pildal J, Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Forfang E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study. Bmj. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1049.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2801–4.CrossRef
38.
Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. Bmj. 2009;339:b2680.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schunemann HJ, et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;57(12):1232–6.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S, et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Bmj. 2004 Jan 3;328(7430):22–4.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Hill CL, LaValley MP, Felson DT. Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Aug;55(8):783–6.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. Bmj. 2008;337:a2299.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005 Aug;26(4):480–7.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1996 Aug 28;276(8):637–9.CrossRef
45.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2001 Apr 18;285(15):1987–91.CrossRef
46.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Bmj. 2010;340:c869.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Davidoff F. News from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Aug 1;133(3):229–31.PubMed
48.
Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 19;148(4):295–309.PubMed
49.
Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Guyatt GH. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Control Clin Trials. 2002 Aug;23(4):380–8.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Piggott M, McGee H, Feuer D. Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systematic review. Palliat Med. 2004 Jan;18(1):32–8.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Lochner H, Sprague S, Tornetta P, 3rd. Application of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the Fracture Care Literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Mar;84-A(3):485–9.PubMed
52.
Hopewell S. Standards to improve the reporting of clinical trials in acupuncture. Acupunct Med. 2010 Jun;28(2):63.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006 Sep 4;185(5):263–7.PubMed
54.
Berdeu D, Herve C, Fourcade J. [Clinical trials in the elderly: ethical and methodologic considerations]. Rev Med Interne. 2000 Jul;21(7):614–22.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Olde Rikkert MG, ten Have HA, Hoefnagels WH. Informed consent in biomedical studies on aging: survey of four journals. Bmj. 1996 Nov 2; 313(7065):1117.PubMedCrossRef
56.
57.
Wagner RM. Ethical review of research involving human subjects: when and why is IRB review necessary? Muscle Nerve. 2003 Jul;28(1):27–39.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Henley LD, Frank DM. Reporting ethical protections in physical therapy research. Phys Ther. 2006 Apr;86(4):499–509.PubMed
59.
60.
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1997 Mar 19;277(11):927–34.CrossRef
61.
Consensus Statement on the Adoption of the COPE Guidelines. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010 Jul;14(7):1067–8.
62.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Princi- ples and Guidelines for the Protection of the Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.
63.
Cannistra SA. The ethics of early stopping rules: who is protecting whom? J Clin Oncol. 2004 May 1;22(9):1542–5.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Olson CM, Jobe KA. Reporting approval by research ethics committees and subjects' consent in human resuscitation research. Resuscitation. 1996 Jun;31(3):255–63.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Charlier P, Bridoux V, Watier L, Menetrier M, Lorin de la Grandmaison G, Herve C. Ethics requirements and impact factor. J Med Ethics. 2011 Dec 13.
Metadata
Title
Methodological and Ethical Quality of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials in Gastrointestinal Surgery
Authors
Valérie Bridoux
Grégoire Moutel
Horace Roman
Babak Kianifard
Francis Michot
Christian Herve
Jean-Jacques Tuech
Publication date
01-09-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 9/2012
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1952-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2012

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 9/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Risk Factors for Esophagojejunal Anastomotic Leakage After Elective Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

How I do it

Refinement of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Techniques After 15 Years of Experience

SSAT State-of-the-Art Conference

Personalized Therapy: Prognostic Factors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST)

Original Article

A Comparative Analysis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatic Resection in Young versus Elderly Patients

Original Article

Risk of Morbidity and Mortality Following Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery

SSAT State-of-the-Art Conference

Proteomics, Genomics, and Molecular Biology in the Personalized Treatment of Colorectal Cancer