Is there resource wastage in the research for spinal diseases? An observational analysis of discontinuation and non-publication in randomised controlled trials

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial)

BACKGROUND

Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery.

METHOD

Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described.

RESULTS

The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

What is the quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials in spinal conditions

Purpose

Substandard quality across published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a major concern. Imperfect reporting has the potential to distort the evidence landscape and waste valuable health-care resources. In this study, we aim to assess the current quality of reporting in the field of spine using a modified version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.

Materials and Methods

A list of published RCTs in the field of spine disease from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020, was built. Two reviewers scored the published RCTs against a modified CONSORT checklist. The mean adjusted CONSORT scores for each study, reporting category, and checklist item were calculated.

Results

The mean and median scores across all of the RCTs were 0.72 and 0.74 out of 1.00, respectively. The spectrum of scores was wide, ranging from 0.45 to 0.94. The reporting categories with the lowest score included randomization, blinding, and abstract. The items which were most under-reported included allocation sequence generation, type of randomization used, full trial protocol details, and abstract methodology. The inter-rater reliability between our reviewers was substantial (κ = 0.7, κ = 0.71).

Conclusion

Our findings correlate with only a moderate level of compliance to the CONSORT criteria on the quality of reporting for RCTs in spinal conditions. This is in line with previous reports on compliance, both within and outside the field of spinal conditions. Further continued and sustained efforts are still required to enhance the quality and consistency of RCT reporting, ultimately reducing health-care resource wastage and improving patient safety.