scholarly journals An assessment of quality of randomized controlled trials in shoulder instability surgery using a modification of the clear CLEAR-NPT score

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 238-249
Author(s):  
Hassanin Alkaduhimi ◽  
Aimane Saarig ◽  
Just A. van der Linde ◽  
Nienke W. Willigenburg ◽  
Derek F. P. van Deurzen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background The present study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and determine the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess surgical treatment for shoulder instability. Methods A Cochrane, Pubmed, EMBASE and Trip database search was performed, including the relevant literature, regarding RCTs that report on shoulder instability published between January 1994 and January 2017. Methodological quality was assessed with a modification of the Checklist to Evaluate A Report of a Nonpharmacologic Trial (CLEAR-NPT). Points were assigned based on 18 items regarding patient characteristics, randomization, care provider characteristics, surgical details and blinding, with a total score ranging from 0 points to 18 points. Missing items were verified with the corresponding authors of the studies. Quality of reporting corresponds to the total scores including the items that were additionally provided by the authors. Results We included 22 studies. Of these, nine corresponding authors provided additional information. The average methodological quality was 16.9 points (11 studies) and the average quality of reporting was 9.5 points (22 studies). Items scoring worst included information regarding the surgeon’s experience, the patients’ level of activity, comorbidities, analyzing according to ‘intention-to-treat’ principles, and blinding of care providers, participants and assessors. Conclusions RCTs reporting on shoulder instability surgery are well performed but poorly reported.

Trends in Worldwide Volume and Methodological Quality of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 258 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usama Ahmed Ali ◽  
Pieter C. van der Sluis ◽  
Yama Issa ◽  
Ibrahim Abou Habaga ◽  
Hein G. Gooszen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Quality and Risk of Bias in Panax ginseng Randomized Controlled Trials: A Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (02) ◽  
pp. 231-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannah L. Shergis ◽  
Anthony L. Zhang ◽  
Wenyu Zhou ◽  
Charlie C. Xue
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Panax Ginseng ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Clinical Benefits

Panax ginseng is one of the most frequently used herbs in the world. Numerous trials have evaluated its clinical benefits. However, the quality of these studies has not been comprehensively and systematically assessed. We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Panax ginseng to evaluate their quality and risk of bias. We searched four English databases, without publication date restriction. Two reviewers extracted details about the studies' methodological quality, guided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and its extension for herbal interventions. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Of 475 potentially relevant studies, 58 met our inclusion criteria. In these 58 studies, 48.3% of the suggested CONSORT checklist items and 35.9% of the extended herbal items were reported. The quality of RCTs published after the CONSORT checklist improved. Until 1995 (before CONSORT) (n = 4), 32.8% of the items were reported in studies. From 1996–2006 (CONSORT published and revised) (n = 30), 46.1% were reported, and from 2007 (n = 24), 53.5% were reported (p = 0.005). After the CONSORT extension for herbal interventions was published in 2006, RCT quality also improved, although not significantly. Until 2005 (n = 34), 35.2% of the extended herbal items were reported in studies; and from 2006 onwards (n = 24), 37.3% were reported (p = 0.64). Most studies classified risk of bias as "unclear". Overall, the quality of Panax ginseng RCT methodology has improved since the CONSORT checklist was introduced. However, more can be done to improve the methodological quality of, and reporting in, RCTs.

Quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic cardiovascular medical devices

Surgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 165 (5) ◽  
pp. 965-969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenwen Chen ◽  
Jiajie Yu ◽  
Longhao Zhang ◽  
Guanyue Su ◽  
Wen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 1386-1395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Latronico ◽  
Marta Metelli ◽  
Maddalena Turin ◽  
Simone Piva ◽  
Frank A. Rasulo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Intensive Care Medicine ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Volume and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in laparoscopic surgery: assessment over a 10-year period

2015 ◽  
Vol 210 (5) ◽  
pp. 922-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros A. Antoniou ◽  
Alexandros Andreou ◽  
George A. Antoniou ◽  
Oliver O. Koch ◽  
Gernot Köhler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Assessing the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-179
Author(s):  
Muhammad Shahzeb Khan ◽  
Rohan Kumar Ochani ◽  
Asim Shaikh ◽  
Muthiah Vaduganathan ◽  
Safi U Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Faeze Gohari ◽  
Hamid Reza Baradaran ◽  
Morteza Tabatabaee ◽  
Shabnam Anijidani ◽  
Fatemeh Mohammadpour Touserkani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Cleft Lip and Palate: A 10-Year Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Hardwicke ◽  
Mohammad Nassimizadeh ◽  
Bruce Richard
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Jadad Score ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Mean

Objectives Reviews of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently been conducted in different surgical specialties. In this review of RCTs relating to cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip and palate (CL/P), we investigate the quality of reporting against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Design A systematic review of CL/P RCTs published from 2004 to 2013, with the included articles scored against the CONSORT checklist. Patients, Participants The literature search identified 174 articles. Studies were selected for participants with CL/P who were involved in an RCT with prospective data collection and reported in a full journal article. A total of 6352 participants were included from 65 CUP RCTs during the study period. Main Outcome Measures The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed using the CONSORT checklist and Jadad scale. Results The mean CONSORT score was 15.8, and the mean Jadad score was 3.3. There was a significant positive correlation between the CONSORT and Jadad score ( P < .0001, ρ = .47). The only significant correlation showed that with an increasing number of authors, both the CONSORT and the Jadad score increased. Conclusion This analysis has shown that that there are deficiencies in the transparent reporting of factors such as randomization implementation, blinding, and participant flow. Interventions, outcomes, and the interpretation of results are well presented. We would recommend that RCTs are conceived and undertaken using the CONSORT checklist and reported in a clear and reproducible manner.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document