Assessing the Quality of Surgical Trials: Further Insight

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.

An Application of a New Evidence Grading System to Research on the Chronic Care Model

Methodological quality undergirds all evidence-based medicine because without strong evidence supporting or refuting the efficacy of an intervention, the movement toward basing medical decisions and practice on scientific evidence is not sustainable. Recently, the consensus that had existed regarding the hierarchy of evidence produced by a study design was challenged on the basis that existing guidelines failed to properly define key terms, weight the merits of certain non-randomized controlled trials, and employ a comprehensive list of study design limitations to render evaluative conclusions, to name a few of the challenges. The present study introduces a new grading system that overcomes, or at the very least greatly diminishes, these challenges. This new method is applied to the literature on the Chronic Care Model and the results are then compared to several of the most popular grading guidelines currently in use. These results revealed substantial differences between the guidelines in accordance with previous research that challenged existing methods. Furthermore, the present study lends support to the proposed grading guideline although further research into its validity and reliability is needed.