Quality of surgical randomized controlled trials for acute cholecystitis: assessment based on CONSORT and additional check items

Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials reports of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

Previously, there were no data looking at the quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on effect comparison of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in China. Here, we evaluate the completeness and transparency of RCT reports in this field.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: Medline, EMbase, SCI Expanded, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Biological Medicine Database, VIP database and Wan Fang databases) to search RCT reports on the effect comparison of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in China. Our study evaluated the reporting quality of RCTs based on 22 standards of Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement. Two reviewers responded with 'yes' or 'no' to each standard to judge whether the authors had reported or had recorded concrete details of the reports accomplished in accordance with the requirement of each standard.

RESULTS

A total of 40 relevant RCTs were included in the final analysis. For the 'Title and abstract', only three articles (7.5%) could be identified directly from its title as the report of RCTs. For the 'Methods', only three articles (7.5%) applied the method of random allocation of sequences; only two articles (5%) mentioned the type of randomization or gave the description of the mechanism of allocation concealment; no article referred the concrete implementation of random method. Only one article (2.5%) applied the method of blinding or sample size calculation; no article had analysis about the metaphase of an experiment or an explanation of its interruption. For 'results', only one article (2.5%) described participant flow, primary and secondary outcomes with estimated effect size or ancillary analyses. Only 13 articles (32.5%) showed baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, 10 (25%) referred to intention-to-treat analysis, and 12 (30%) mentioned important harms or unintended effects. For the 'discussion', only eight articles (20%) gave the description of trials' limitations and 13 (32.5%) presented the generalizability (external validity, applicability) of the trial findings.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the RCT reports on effect comparison of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in China is poor. The reporting of RCTs in this field should be standardized, according to the specifications of the CONSORT 2010.

Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors administered through intravenous infusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The intravenous use of protease inhibitors in patients with acute pancreatitis is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of protease inhibitors intravenously administered to prevent pancreatitis-associated complications.

METHODS

We updated our previous meta-analysis with articles of randomized controlled trials published from January 1965 to March 2013 on the effectiveness of protease inhibitors for acute pancreatitis. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina was conducted. In addition, Internet-based registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, controlled-trials.com, UMIN, JMACCT, and JAPIC) were used to search for on-going clinical trials. Furthermore, references of review articles and previously published meta-analyses were handsearched. The main outcome of interest was the overall mortality rate from acute pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials were selected for analysis. Overall, protease inhibitors did not achieve a significant risk reduction in mortality (pooled risk difference [RD], -0.02; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -0.05 to 0.01; number needed to treat [NNT], 74.8) with low heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis in moderate to severe pancreatitis (defined by control mortality rate [CMR] >0.10) did not show a significant effect of protease inhibitors to prevent death (pooled RD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.01; NNT, 1603.9) with low heterogeneity. An additional subgroup analysis of two trials with CMR >0.20 (i.e., low quality) revealed a significant risk reduction.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis re-confirmed that there is no solid evidence that supports the intravenous use of protease inhibitors to prevent death due to acute pancreatitis.

[Acute cholecystitis: primarily conservative or operative approach?]

Acute cholecystitis is one of the most common acute surgical diseases. There is a consensus that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended as the treatment of choice; however, there is a controversy about the best time for surgery. In contrast to delayed cholecystectomy after initial antibiotic treatment, early or immediate cholecystectomy seems to have some advantages. Recent studies and meta-analyses have several limitations due to small patient numbers and inhomogeneity in treatment design. Nevertheless, international guidelines tend to recommend early cholecystectomy but the most recent concept of immediate cholecystectomy within 24 h after diagnosis independent of the onset of symptoms is not considered. A current prospective multicenter, randomized controlled trial will shortly bring more clarity to this topic (ACDC trial).

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

Background

Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies.

Methods

We undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Our search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies.

Conclusion

Reporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.

Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials use the play of chance to assign participants to comparison groups. The unpredictability of the process, if not subverted, should prevent systematic differences between comparison groups (selection bias). Differences due to chance will still occur and these are minimised by randomising a sufficiently large number of people.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of randomisation and concealment of allocation on the results of healthcare studies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register, MEDLINE, SciSearch and reference lists up to September 2009. In addition, we screened articles citing included studies (ISI Science Citation Index) and papers related to included studies (PubMed).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible study designs were cohorts of studies, systematic reviews or meta-analyses of healthcare interventions that compared random allocation versus non-random allocation or adequate versus inadequate/unclear concealment of allocation in randomised trials. Outcomes of interest were the magnitude and direction of estimates of effect and imbalances in prognostic factors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We retrieved and assessed studies that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria independently. At least two review authors independently appraised methodological quality and extracted information. We prepared tabular summaries of the results for each comparison and assessed the results across studies qualitatively to identify common trends or discrepancies.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 18 studies (systematic reviews or meta-analyses) met our inclusion criteria. Ten compared random allocation versus non-random allocation and nine compared adequate versus inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation within controlled trials. All studies were at high risk of bias.For the comparison of randomised versus non-randomised studies, four comparisons yielded inconclusive results (differed between outcomes or different modes of analysis); three comparisons showed similar results for random and non-random allocation; two comparisons had larger estimates of effect in non-randomised studies than in randomised trials; and two comparisons had larger estimates of effect in randomised than in non-randomised studies.Five studies found larger estimates of effect in trials with inadequate concealment of allocation than in trials with adequate concealment. The four other studies did not find statistically significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of randomised and non-randomised studies sometimes differed. In some instances non-randomised studies yielded larger estimates of effect and in other instances randomised trials yielded larger estimates of effect. The results of controlled trials with adequate and inadequate/unclear concealment of allocation sometimes differed. When differences occurred, most often trials with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment yielded larger estimates of effects relative to controlled trials with adequate allocation concealment. However, it is not generally possible to predict the magnitude, or even the direction, of possible selection biases and consequent distortions of treatment effects from studies with non-random allocation or controlled trials with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment.