scholarly journals Quality of reporting of cranial irradiation techniques in randomized controlled trials of primary brain tumors: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0241566
Author(s):  
Teng Hwee Tan ◽  
Desiree Chen ◽  
Yu Yang Soon ◽  
Jeremy Chee Seong Tey
Keyword(s):  
Brain Tumors ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cranial Irradiation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Primary Brain Tumors ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Fractionation Schedule ◽  
Adequate Quality

Background To assess the quality of reporting of cranial irradiation (CR) techniques in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary brain tumors. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE for RCTs of primary brain tumors, published from January 1999 to November 2019 which included CR as one of the intervention arms. We assessed the initial RCTs report on whether they reported the prespecified ten criteria for CR technique adequately. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the factors that were predictive of adequate quality of reporting. Results We found 85 eligible trial reports. There was significant variability in the quality of reporting among the included studies. Total radiotherapy (RT) dose and fractionation schedule were reported adequately in more than 90% of the included trials. The organs at risk dose constraints, treatment verification procedures and presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery were reported adequately in less than 30% of included trials. Twenty-three trials (27%) reported seven criteria or more adequately. Multivariable analysis showed that trials conducted by cooperative groups, published RT quality assurance results and having a low risk of bias in the methodological quality have higher odds of having adequate quality in reporting of CR technique (judged as adequate reporting in seven criteria or more). Conclusions The quality of reporting on CR techniques in the RCTs of primary brain tumors is variable and suboptimal. Guidelines should be introduced to improve clarity and ensure consistency in the quality of reporting.

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

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.

scholarly journals Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered?

2016 ◽  
Vol 124 (2) ◽  
pp. 558-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alireza Mansouri ◽  
Benjamin Cooper ◽  
Samuel M. Shin ◽  
Douglas Kondziolka
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
English Language ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mesh Terms

OBJECT Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are advocated to provide high-level medical evidence. However, in neurosurgery, there are barriers to conducting RCTs. The authors of this study sought to analyze the quality of neurosurgical RCTs since 2000 to determine the adequacy of their design and reporting. METHODS A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (2000–2014) was conducted. The medical subject heading (MeSH) terms used in the search included: “neurosurgery” OR “neurosurgical procedure,” “brain neoplasms,” “infarction” and “decompression,” “carotid stenosis,” “cerebral hemorrhage,” and “spinal fusion.” These studies were limited to RCTs, in humans, and in the English language. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of RCT design and reporting. The standardized median times cited (median citations divided by years since publication) were used to assess impact. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-based scale was used to assess the design of the studies as primarily pragmatic or explanatory. RESULTS Sixty-one articles were identified, and the following subspecialties were the most common: vascular (23, 37%), followed by functional neurosurgery and neurooncology (both 13, 21%). The following nations were the primary leaders in RCTs: US (25 studies, 41%), Germany (8 studies, 13%), and the United Kingdom (7 studies, 11%). Median sample size was 100 (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5–279). The majority of the studies (40, 66%) had pragmatic objectives. The median number of times cited overall was 69 (IQR 20.5–193). The combined median CONSORT score was 36 (IQR 27.5–39). Blinding was most deficiently reported. Other areas with a relatively low quality of reporting were sample size calculation (34.2% of surgical, 38.5% of drug, and 20% of device studies), allocation concealment (28.9% of surgical, 23.1% of drug, and 50% of device studies), and protocol implementation (18.4% of surgical, 23% of drug, and 20% of device studies). The quality of reporting did not correlate with the study impact. All studies had a median Jadad score ≤ 3. Thirty-three pragmatic studies (83%) and 5 explanatory studies (25%) met the design objectives. All pragmatic studies based on drug and device trials met their objectives, while 74% of pragmatic surgical trials met their objectives. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of neurosurgical RCTs is low. The quality of RCT design and reporting in neurosurgery is also low. Many study designs are not compatible with stated objectives. Pragmatic studies were more likely to meet design objectives. Given the role of RCTs as one of the highest levels of evidence, it is critical to improve on their methodology and reporting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document