Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: literature review
- PMID: 16946391
- PMCID: PMC1557878
- DOI: 10.1177/014107680609900919
Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: literature review
Abstract
Objectives: Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of such trials are the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of interventions. There have been concerns about the anecdotal evidence underpinning many of the interventions used and introduced into surgical care. The American College of Surgeons has prioritized the need for more trials and systematic reviews of trials. To investigate the assertion that the methodological quality of studies conducted in surgery is in general poor and to assess the possible impact of new policy developments in the US, we sought to compare the number and proportion of published randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in the leading two US and UK general surgical journals. Two reviewers systematically and independently hand searched all issues of these journals over a 12-month period to identify randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews.
Design: Systematic searching and independent abstraction of data from all volumes of the top two general surgical journals published in the USA and the UK in 2004.
Setting: 519 original reports in UK journals and 616 original reports in USA journals.
Main outcome measures: Number and proportion of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews.
Results: Overall, the proportion of randomized controlled trials in all four journals was 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4-7.0) and 5.2% (95% CI 4.1-6.7) for systematic reviews. For journals published in the UK 29/519 (5.6%) of the publications were reports of randomized controlled trials, and for the USA journals this figure was 34/616 (5.5%); odds ratio [OR]=0.99, 95%CI 0.6-1.6; P=0.96. Systematic reviews were significantly more commonly reported in the UK journals: UK 37/519 (7.1%) versus USA 22/616 (3.6%); OR=0.48, 95%CI 0.3-0.8; P<0.01.
Conclusions: The concerns expressed almost a decade ago remain valid: there are still very few reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published in leading USA and UK surgical journals, with relatively little difference between these countries in the proportion of reported studies employing these designs. The American College of Surgeons initiative has yet to make an impact.
Comment in
-
Good and bad lessons from the United States.J R Soc Med. 2006 Sep;99(9):429. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900901. J R Soc Med. 2006. PMID: 16946374 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11(11):MR000030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID: 23152285 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties.BMJ. 2012 May 17;344:e3223. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3223. BMJ. 2012. PMID: 22597353 Free PMC article.
-
A bibliometric study of the top 100 most-cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in endodontic journals.Int Endod J. 2019 Sep;52(9):1297-1316. doi: 10.1111/iej.13131. Epub 2019 May 13. Int Endod J. 2019. PMID: 31009099 Review.
Cited by
-
Practical tips for surgical research: introduction to the series.Can J Surg. 2010 Feb;53(1):67-8. Can J Surg. 2010. PMID: 20100417 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Assuring quality in HPB surgery--efficacy and safety.HPB (Oxford). 2007;9(5):335-8. doi: 10.1080/13651820701481505. HPB (Oxford). 2007. PMID: 18345315 Free PMC article.
-
Trials and tribulations: the professional development of surgical trialists.Am J Surg. 2012 Sep;204(3):339-346.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.11.008. Am J Surg. 2012. PMID: 22920404 Free PMC article.
-
Global research coaching in orthopedic surgery: seeding for an international network.Acta Ortop Bras. 2012;20(2):110-7. doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000200010. Acta Ortop Bras. 2012. PMID: 24453591 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Combined bias suppression in single-arm therapy studies.J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):923-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00903.x. Epub 2008 Mar 24. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008. PMID: 18373566 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Jones RS, Richards K. Office of Evidence-based surgery charts course for improved system of care. Bull Am Coll Surg 2003; April 11-21 - PubMed
-
- Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, 2nd edn. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 105-9
-
- Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS. Randomised controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 1995;117: 355-6 - PubMed
-
- Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996;347: 984. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources