A Systematic Review of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials

Comparison of Outcomes after Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Latissimus Dorsi with Immediate Fat Transfer versus Abdominally Based Free Flaps

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction confers favorable patient reports of satisfaction and quality of life compared with implant-based reconstruction over a lifetime. The latissimus dorsi with immediate fat transfer (LIFT) is an alternative approach to abdominally based free flaps (Ab-FF), which expands fully autologous reconstruction to nonmicrosurgeons. This study compared the 2 procedures concerning their clinical and patient-reported outcomes 1 year postoperatively.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of LIFTs and Ab-FFs performed between March of 2017 and August of 2022. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, reoperations, and longitudinal BREAST-Q scores. BREAST-Q modules included Satisfaction with Breasts, Satisfaction with Abdomen, Satisfaction with Back, Psychosocial Well-being, Physical Well-being: Chest, Physical Well-being: Abdomen, Physical Well-being: Back, and Sexual Well-being.

RESULTS

Of the 281 included patients (408 breasts), 211 received Ab-FF and 70 received LIFT. One-year follow-up (median [interquartile range], 12 [12] months) demonstrated that Ab-FF independently predicted dehiscence, reoperation procedures, and revisional surgery. LIFT independently increased the odds of seroma. Obesity predicted dehiscence, and bilateral reconstructions predicted revisional fat grafting. BREAST-Q scores fluctuated over time but were similar across all measured domains by 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Ab-FF is the standard approach for fully autologous reconstruction, LIFT procedures may be associated with a less complicated postoperative course while eliciting similar patient-reported outcomes. LIFT may be preferred to limit postoperative complications, particularly in patients with obesity. LIFT can be used by plastic surgeons who are not trained in microsurgical procedures or do not have an environment that fosters Ab-FF.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

The Author Truncation "et al." in Article References: An Anachronism That Needs to Change

Background: Valuable research requires contribution from many experts; however, the "et al." truncation often keeps all individuals from being acknowledged. The adoption of a new citation rule (list all authors up to 30, followed by et al.) would allow more authors to be acknowledged. The purpose of this study was to (1) explore the citation styles of the top 10 Plastic Surgery, Surgery, and Medical journals and (2) compare the number of extra pages required, and the number of additional authors acknowledged when the "new rule" is implemented. Methods: The top 10 journals in Plastic Surgery, Surgery, and Medicine were identified. The citation styles used in each of the journals were reviewed and the reference list from a recently published article was extracted. The original reference list was used to create an Extended Reference List using the new rule. Results: Most journals implemented "et al." when seven or more authors were listed. Ten articles required additional pages to accommodate the Extended Reference List. When the "et al." truncation was introduced after 30 authors, there was an almost 100% chance of all authors being included. The adoption of this rule rarely resulted in the need for additional pages, especially within Plastic Surgery. Conclusions: In a time of electronic publishing, where constraints such as article and journal page length should not be important factors, all authors should be recognized. The use of the "et al." truncation should be discouraged by all individuals involved in the production and publication of research. Scenario You are asked by the Editor-in-Chief of your specialty's journal to review an article in your area of expertise. You gladly accept the task. One of the questions you are required to answer in your review is whether the authors of the submitted manuscript have missed any important articles in their references. As you are the recognized expert in this field, you glance at the references to see if a key article you published 3 years earlier has been included. The first author of that article was a junior resident in your service and the research was done under your supervision. To their credit, the authors included the said article, but you are dismayed that the reference does not include your name. It includes only the names of the first three authors, all junior residents in your service. Your name, and the names of many others, are lost in the et al. truncation.

The appropriateness and quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in plastic surgery randomized controlled trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) quantify patient perspectives to measure outcomes that matter to patients. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of appropriateness and quality of PROM selection in plastic surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from January 1, 2000, to June 5, 2022, to identify published RCTs within the plastic surgery literature. Included studies were categorized as follows: 1) a clearly defined patient-reported primary outcome; 2) a primary outcome could be inferred; or 3) no clear or implied primary outcome. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database was consulted to assess the available literature on the PROMs.

RESULTS

There were 130 plastic surgery RCTs identified. Of the 43 studies with a clear or inferred primary outcome, the percentage of studies that commented with supporting references on the PROM's appropriateness for the population, disease/condition, and outcome were 20.9% (n = 9/43), 18.6% (n = 8/43), and 27.9% (n = 12/43), respectively. The percentage of studies that commented on the PROM's validity, reliability, and responsiveness with supporting references were 34.9% (n = 15/43), 14.0% (n = 6/43), and 11.7% (n = 5/43), respectively. There were 21 unique PROMs identified; 28.6% (n = 6/21) were available in the COSMIN database.

CONCLUSION

The majority of plastic surgery RCTs assessing patient-reported primary outcomes lack transparency surrounding PROM selection and quality. We recommend investigators conducting plastic surgery clinical research report explicitly why they used a particular PROM and support its appropriateness and psychometric properties with supporting references. Finally, they should familiarize themselves with the COSMIN initiative.

"Spin" in Plastic Surgery Randomized Controlled Trials with Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

"Spin" refers to a manipulation of language that implies benefit for an intervention when none may exist. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in other fields have been demonstrated to employ spin, which can mislead clinicians to use ineffective or unsafe interventions. This study's objective was to determine the strategies, severity, and extent of spin in plastic surgery RCTs with nonsignificant primary outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of the top 15 plastic surgery journals using MEDLINE was performed (2000 through 2020). Parallel 1:1 RCTs with a clearly identified primary outcome showing statistically nonsignificant results ( P > 0.05) were included. Screening, data extraction, and spin analysis were performed by two independent reviewers. The spin analysis was then independently assessed in duplicate by two plastic surgery residents with graduate-level training in clinical epidemiology.

RESULTS

From 3497 studies identified, 92 RCTs were included in this study. Spin strategies were identified in 78 RCTs (85%), including 64 abstracts (70%) and 77 main texts (84%). Severity of spin was rated moderate or high in 43 abstract conclusions (47%) and 42 main text conclusions (46%). The most identified spin strategy in the abstract was claiming equivalence for statistically nonsignificant results (26%); in the main text, focusing on another objective (24%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that 85% of statistically nonsignificant RCTs in plastic surgery employ spin. Readers of plastic surgery research should be aware of strategies, whether intentional or unintentional, used to manipulate language in reports of statistically nonsignificant RCTs when applying research findings to clinical practice.

The Importance of Pragmatic Study Design to the Scholarly Influence of Surgical Hip Fracture Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have potential drawbacks, leading some to question their role in filling the information gap in orthopaedic surgery. Pragmatism in study design was introduced to increase the clinical applicability of study results. The purpose of this study was to examine how pragmatism affects the scholarly influence of surgical RCTs.

METHODS

A search for surgical hip fracture-related RCTs published between 1995 and 2015 was done. Journal impact factor, citation number, research question, significance and type of outcome, number of centers involved, and the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 level of pragmatism score were recorded for each study. Scholarly influence was estimated by a study's inclusion into orthopaedic literature or guidelines or through the study's average yearly citation rate.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty RCTs were included in the final analysis. A multivariate logistic regression identified large study sample size as the only predictor of an RCT being used in clinical guidance texts. Large sample size and multicenter RCTs were predictors of high yearly citation rates. The level of pragmatism in study design did not predict scholarly influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pragmatic design is not independently associated with increased scholarly influence; however, large study sample size was the most important study characteristic affecting scholarly influence.

Improving the Science in Plastic Surgery

SUMMARY

In 1906, George Bernard Shaw criticized the medical profession for its lack of science and compassion. Since then, advances in both medical and surgical subspecialties have improved quality of patient care. Unfortunately, the reporting of these advances is variable and is frequently biased. Such limitations lead to false claims, wasted research dollars, and inability to synthesize and apply evidence to practice. It was hoped that the introduction of evidence-based medicine would improve the quality of health care and decrease health dollar waste. For this to occur, however, credible "best evidence"-one of the components of evidence-based medicine-is required. This article provides a framework for credible research evidence in plastic surgery, as follows: (1) stating the clinical research question, (2) selecting the proper study design, (3) measuring critical (important) outcomes, (4) using the correct scale(s) to measure the outcomes, (5) including economic evaluations with clinical (effectiveness) studies, and (6) reporting a study's results using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research, or EQUATOR, guidelines. Surgeon investigators are encouraged to continue improving the science in plastic surgery by applying the framework outlined in this article. Improving surgical clinical research should decrease resource waste and provide patients with improved evidence-based care.

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties.

METHODS

Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points).

RESULTS

Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Assessment of Risk of Bias in Osteosarcoma and Ewing's Sarcoma Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the risk of bias in osteosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma (ES) randomized controlled trials (RCT) and to examine the relationships between bias and conflict of interest/industry sponsorship. Methods: An OVID-MEDLINE search was performed (1976–2019). Using the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, two reviewers independently assessed the prevalence of risk of bias in different RCT design domains. The relationship between conflicts of interest and industry funding with the frequency of bias was examined. Results: 73 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Prevalence of low-risk bias domains was 47.3%, unclear-risk domains 47.8%, and 4.9% of the domains had a high-risk of bias. Domains with the highest risk of bias were blinding of participants/personnel and outcome assessors, followed by randomization and allocation concealment. Overtime, frequency of unclear-risk of bias domains decreased (χ² = 5.32, p = 0.02), whilst low and high-risk domains increased (χ² = 8.13, p = 0.004). Studies with conflicts of interest and industry sponsorships were 4.2 and 3.1 times more likely to have design domains with a high-risk of bias (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that sources of potential bias are prevalent in both osteosarcoma and ES RCTs. Studies with financial conflicts of interest and industry sponsors were significantly more likely to have domains with a high-risk of bias. Improvements in reporting and adherence to proper methodology will reduce the risk of bias and improve the validity of the results of RCTs in osteosarcoma and ES.

Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study

Background

Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the true effects of interventions. Surgical RCTs may suffer from the risk of bias (RoB) that is avoidable in trials of other interventions, and vice versa. We aimed to compare the adequacy of RoB assessments in surgical versus non-surgical RCTs included in Cochrane reviews and to assess the most common differences in those RoB assessments. Due to specificities of surgical trials, i.e. difficulties associated with blinding of surgical interventions, we hypothesized that assessments of surgical trials may be more adequate, compared to RCTs of non-surgical interventions.

Methods

This was a methodological study, analyzing methods of published Cochrane systematic reviews. Data were extracted from RoB tables in Cochrane reviews (judgments and accompanying explanatory comment) for the following four RoB domains used in the 2011 Cochrane RoB tool: randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. We defined adequate assessments as those that were in line with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The prevalence of adequate assessments was compared in surgical versus non-surgical trials. The most common differences in both groups of reviews were presented.

Results

In 729 analyzed Cochrane reviews, there were 10,537 included trials. The prevalence of adequate RoB judgments made by Cochrane authors ranged from 87.9, 95%CI (87.3 to 88.6%) for randomization to 70.7, 95%CI (69.8 to 71.5%) for blinding of participants and personnel. For all analyzed RoB domains, the prevalence of adequate RoB domains was higher in surgical trials than in non-surgical trials. For two RoB domains assessing blinding, this difference between surgical and non-surgical trials was statistically significant (P < 0.001), while the difference was not significant for the RoB domain regarding randomization (P = 0.124) and allocation concealment (P = 0.039, β < 0.8).

Conclusions

RoB judgments were more in line with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook when Cochrane reviews assessed surgical trials, compared to those that analyzed non-surgical interventions. However, further steps are warranted to scrutinize RoB assessment in trials of both surgical and non-surgical interventions.

Use of Sham Interventions in Randomized Controlled Trials in Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

 The use of sham interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential to minimize bias. However, their use in surgical RCTs is rare and subject to ethical concerns. To date, no studies have looked at the use of sham interventions in RCTs in neurosurgery.

METHODS

 This study evaluated the frequency, type, and indication of sham interventions in RCTs in neurosurgery. RCTs using sham interventions were also characterized in terms of design and risk of bias.

RESULTS

 From a total of 1,102 identified RCTs in neurosurgery, 82 (7.4%) used sham interventions. The most common indication for the RCT was the treatment of pain (67.1%), followed by the treatment of movement disorders and other clinical problems (18.3%) and brain injuries (12.2%). The most used sham interventions were saline injections into spinal structures (31.7%) and peripheral nerves (10.9%), followed by sham interventions in cranial surgery (26.8%), and spine surgery (15.8%). Insertion of probes or catheters for a sham lesions was performed in 14.6%.In terms of methodology, most RCTs using sham interventions were double blinded (76.5%), 9.9% were single blinded, and 13.6% did not report the type of blinding.

CONCLUSION

 Sham-controlled RCTs in neurosurgery are feasible. Most aim to minimize bias and to evaluate the efficacy of pain management methods, especially in spinal disorders. The greatest proportion of sham-controlled RCTs involves different types of substance administration routes, with sham surgery the less commonly performed.

The Effect of Sequential Compression Devices on Fibrinolysis in Plastic Surgery Outpatients: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Sequential compression devices are often considered a mainstay of prophylaxis against deep venous thromboses in surgical patients. The devices are believed to produce a milking action on the deep veins to prevent venous stasis. A systemic fibrinolytic effect has also been proposed, adding a second mechanism of action. The plasma levels of tissue plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 reflect fibrinolytic activity.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted among 50 consecutive plastic surgery outpatients undergoing cosmetic surgery performed by the author under total intravenous anesthesia and without paralysis. Patients were randomized to receive calf-length sequential compression devices or no sequential compression devices during surgery. Blood samples were obtained from the upper extremity preoperatively and at hourly intervals until the patient was discharged from the postanesthesia care unit. Tissue plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels were measured. Ultrasound surveillance was used in all patients. There was no outside funding for the study.

RESULTS

All patients agreed to participate (inclusion rate, 100 percent). No patient developed clinical signs or ultrasound evidence of a deep venous thrombosis. There were no significant changes in tissue plasminogen activator levels or plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels from the preoperative measurements at any hourly interval and no differences in levels comparing patients treated with or without sequential compression devices.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant change in systemic fibrinolytic activity occurs during outpatient plastic surgery under total intravenous anesthesia. Sequential compression devices do not affect tissue plasminogen activator or plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels, suggesting no fibrinolytic benefit.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Meta-Analyses in Plastic Surgery: Can We Trust Their Results?

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses are common in the plastic surgery literature, but studies concerning their quality are lacking. The authors assessed the overall quality of meta-analyses in plastic surgery, and attempted to identify variables associated with scientific quality.

METHODS

A systematic review of meta-analyses published in seven plastic surgery journals between 2007 and 2017 was undertaken. Publication descriptors and methodologic details were extracted. Articles were assessed using the following two instruments: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and AMSTAR 2.

RESULTS

Seventy-four studies were included. The number of meta-analyses per year increased. Most meta-analyses assessed a single intervention (59.5 percent), and pooled a mean of 20.9 studies (range, two to 134), including a mean of 2463 patients (range, 44 to 14,884). Most meta-analyses were published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (44.6 percent) and included midlevel evidence (II to IV) primary studies. Only 16.2 percent of meta-analyses included randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses generally reported positive (81.1 percent) and significant results (77.0 percent). Median AMSTAR score was 7 of 11 (interquartile range, 5 to 8). Higher AMSTAR scores correlated with more recent meta-analyses that provided a rationale for statistical pooling, and appropriately managed methodologic heterogeneity (r = 0.66; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in number and quality, meta-analyses are at high risk of bias because of the low level of evidence of included primary studies and heterogeneity within and between primary studies. Plastic surgeons should be aware of the pitfalls of conducting and interpreting meta-analyses.

Discrepancies between Registered and Published Primary and Secondary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials within the Plastic Surgery Literature: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have identified a high incidence of discrepancy between registered and published outcomes in registered medical and surgical randomized controlled trials. This has not yet been studied in the plastic surgery literature.

METHODS

The authors systematically assessed plastic surgery randomized controlled trials published between 2012 and 2016 in seven high-impact plastic surgery journals. Data were collected from the registration website and published articles using a standardized data extraction form.

RESULTS

A total of 145 randomized controlled trials were identified, with a 39 percent trial registration rate (n = 57). Forty-nine trials were included in the final analysis. Forty-three (88 percent) had a discrepancy between registered and published outcomes: 26 (53 percent) for primary outcome(s), and 39 (80 percent) for secondary outcome(s). The number of discrepancies in an individual trial ranged from one to seven for primary outcomes and one to 12 for secondary outcomes. Aesthetic surgery had the largest number of trials with outcome discrepancies (n = 15). The prevalence of unreported registered outcomes was 13 percent for primary outcomes and 38 percent for secondary outcomes. Registered nonsignificant primary outcomes were published as nonsignificant secondary outcomes in 30 percent of trials. Publishing new nonregistered secondary outcomes (65 percent) and changing the assessment timing of published primary outcomes (61 percent) were the most common types of discrepancies. Discrepancies favored a statistically significant positive outcome in 19 (44 percent) of the 43 trials with an outcome discrepancy. Discrepancies that resulted in published outcomes with improved patient relevance were found in eight trials (16 percent) for primary outcome discrepancies and 14 trials (29 percent) for secondary outcome discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS

The plastic surgery literature has high rates of discrepancies between registered and published trial outcomes. Outcome reporting discrepancy is even more problematic for secondary outcomes, an area of analysis that has previously been poorly studied. The high rate of discrepancy change favoring a statistically significant outcome and more patient-relevant outcomes may indicate the pressure to demonstrate significant results to be accepted for publication in high-impact journals.

Neurosurgical Randomized Controlled Trials-Distance Travelled

BACKGROUND

The evidence base for many neurosurgical procedures has been limited. We performed a comprehensive and systematic analysis of study design, quality of reporting, and trial results of neurosurgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the design and quality characteristics of neurosurgical RCTs.

METHODS

From January 1961 to June 2016, RCTs with >5 patients assessing any 1 neurosurgical procedure against another procedure, nonsurgical treatment, or no treatment were retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

The median sample size in the 401 eligible RCTs was 73 patients with a mean patient age of 49.6. Only 111 trials (27.1%) described allocation concealment, 140 (34.6%) provided power calculations, and 117 (28.9%) were adequately powered. Significant efficacy or trend for efficacy was claimed in 226 reports (56.4%), no difference between the procedures was found in 166 trials (41.4%), and significant harm was reported in 9 trials (2.2%). Trials with a larger sample size were more likely to report randomization mode, specify allocation concealment, and power calculations (all P < .001). Government funding was associated with better specification of power calculations (P = .008) and of allocation concealment (P = .026), while industry funding was associated with reporting significant efficacy (P = .02). Reporting of funding, specification of randomization mode and primary outcomes, and mention of power calculations improved significantly (all, P < .05) over time.

CONCLUSION

Several aspects of the design and reporting of RCTs on neurosurgical procedures have improved over time. Better powered and accurately reported trials are needed in neurosurgery to deliver evidence-based care and achieve optimal outcomes.

Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes: Key Metrics in Reconstructive Surgery

Satisfaction and improved quality of life are among the most important outcomes for patients undergoing plastic and reconstructive surgery for a variety of diseases and conditions. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools for evaluating the benefits of newly developed surgical techniques. Modern PROMs are being developed with new psychometric approaches, such as Rasch Measurement Theory, and their measurement properties (validity, reliability, responsiveness) are rigorously tested. These advances have resulted in the availability of PROMs that provide clinically meaningful data and effectively measure functional as well as psychosocial outcomes. This article guides the reader through the steps of creating a PROM and highlights the potential research and clinical uses of such instruments. Limitations of PROMs and anticipated future directions in this field are discussed.

Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials for Surgical Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. The authors conducted a systematic review to evaluate the quantity, quality, and trends of randomized controlled trials that assess surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

The authors identified randomized controlled trials comparing two or more surgical interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Two independent reviewers evaluated articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed randomized controlled trial quality using the Jadad score.

RESULTS

Of 2253 identified studies, 58 met full inclusion criteria. They were published between 1985 and 2015, with a significant increase over time (p = 0.003). They were most frequently published in Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) [n = 15 (25.9 percent)]. Most randomized controlled trials were single-center studies [n = 54 (93.1 percent)] conducted in the United Kingdom [n = 13 (22.4 percent)] or the United States [n = 10 (17.2 percent)], with a mean study size of 80.1 ± 55.5 patients. Funding source was unknown in 62.1 percent (n = 36). Three-quarters [n = 44 (75.9 percent)] of randomized controlled trials did not define the primary outcome measure(s). Less than 30 percent (n = 17) of randomized controlled trials conducted a power analysis. Only four studies with patients reported lost to follow-up provided an explanation for each patient. Six randomized controlled trials (10.3 percent) conducted intention-to-treat analysis. The mean Jadad score was 2.14 ± 1.26, with no significant improvement over time (p = 0.245).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the significant increase in the number of randomized controlled trials published studying surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome over time, a mean Jadad score of 2.14 with no change over time indicates a need for improvement in quality. Proper study design is key to avoiding introduction of bias and ensuring the validity of conclusions drawn.

Quality of surgical randomized controlled trials in hand surgery: a systematic review

We assessed the quantity, quality and trends of randomized controlled trials comparing hand surgical interventions. Study characteristics were collected for 125 randomized controlled trials comparing hand surgical interventions. The Jadad scale (0-5), which assesses methodological quality of trials, was calculated. Logistic regressions were conducted to determine associations with the Jadad score. The studies were published between 1981 and 2015, with an increase over time, most often in Journal of Hand Surgery (European). Mean study size was 68 patients. Mean Jadad score was 2.1, without improvement over time. Thirty percent conducted a power analysis and 8% an intention-to-treat analysis. Studies conducted in the United Kingdom and with smaller sample sizes, power analysis and intention-to-treat analysis were associated with a higher Jadad score. The quantity of trials has increased over time while methodological quality has remained low, indicating a need to improve quality of trials in hand surgery literature.