Fecal incontinence: the quality of reported randomized, controlled trials in the last ten years

Early and late anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery: A systematic review of the literature

The aim of this study was to review and to assess the quality of the scientific articles regarding early and late anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal surgery and their risk factors. An electronic systematic search for articles on Colorectal Surgery, AL and its timing was undertaken using the MEDLINE database via PubMed, Cochrane and Embase. The selected articles were thoroughly reviewed and assessed for methodological quality using a validated methodology quality score (MINCIR score). This review was registered in the PROSPERO registry under ID: CRD42022303012. 9 articles were finally reviewed in relation to the topic of early and late anastomotic leak. There is a lack of consensus regarding the exact cut-off in time to define early and late anastomotic leak, but it is clear that they are two differentiated entities. The first, occurring in relation to technical factors; whereas the latter, is related to impaired healing.

A systematic review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for faecal incontinence in adults

AIM

To perform a review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for faecal incontinence (FI) in adults.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify RCTs reporting on treatments for FI.

RESULTS

The review included 60 RCTs reporting on 4838 patients with a mean age ranging from 36.8 to 88 years. From the included RCTs, 32 did not identify a significant difference between the treatments compared. Contradictory results were identified in RCTs comparing percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham stimulation, biofeedback-pelvic floor muscle training (BF-PFMT) versus PFMT, and between bulking agents such as PTQ^TM versus Durasphere^®. In two separate RCTs, combination treatment of amplitude-modulated medium frequency stimulation and electromyography-biofeedback (EMG-BF), was noted to be superior to EMG-BF and low-frequency electrical stimulation alone. Combination of non-surgical treatments such as BF with sphincteroplasty significantly improved continence scores compared to sphincteroplasty alone. Surgical treatments were associated with higher rates of serious adverse events compared to non-surgical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence has not identified significant differences between treatments for FI, and where differences were identified, the results were contradictory between RCTs.

Electrical stimulation and biofeedback for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review determines the best known form of biofeedback (BF) and/or electrical stimulation (ES) for the treatment of fecal incontinence in adults and rates the quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Attention is given to type, strength, and application mode of the current for ES and to safety.

METHODS

Methods followed the Cochrane Handbook. Randomized controlled trials were included. Studies were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (registration number (PROSPERO): CRD42011001334).

RESULTS

BF and/or ES were studied in 13 randomized parallel-group trials. In 12 trials, at least one therapy group received BF alone and/or in combination with ES, while ES alone was evaluated in seven trials. Three (four) trials were rated as of high (moderate) quality. Average current strength was reported in three of seven studies investigating ES; only two studies reached the therapeutic window. No trial showed superiority of control, or of BF alone or of ES alone when compared with BF + ES. Superiority of BF + ES over any monotherapy was demonstrated in several trials. Amplitude-modulated medium-frequency (AM-MF) stimulation, also termed pre-modulated interferential stimulation, combined with BF was superior to both low-frequency ES and BF alone, and 50 % of the patients were continent after 6 months of treatment. Effects increased with treatment duration. Safety reporting was bad, and there are safety issues with some forms of low-frequency ES.

CONCLUSIONS

There is sufficient evidence for the efficacy of BF plus ES combined in treating fecal incontinence. AM-MF plus BF seems to be the most effective and safe treatment.

KEY MESSAGES

• The higher the quality of the randomized trial the more likely was a significant difference between treatment groups. • Two times more patients became continent when biofeedback was used instead of a control, such as pelvic floor exercises. • Two times more patients became continent when biofeedback plus electrical stimulation was used instead of biofeedback only. • Low-frequency electrical stimulation can have adverse device effects, and this is in contrast to amplitude-modulated medium-frequency electrical stimulation. • There is high quality evidence that amplitude-modulated medium-frequency electrical stimulation plus electromyography biofeedback is the best second-line treatment for fecal incontinence.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.